The Washington Redskins owner needs to apply for protection for the following names:
The Washington [*bleep*]s
or
The Washington R-word-s
I always find it interesting when the press warns us about the dangers of a free press.
"Change the mascot to a potato and still call themselves 'Redskins'". Cool!
Another comment opined on why there is no outcry about the Cleveland Indians mascot name. Don't liberals find the term "Indians" offensive when referring to America's "native Americans"? Do "native" Americans find it offensive to be called Indians?
And how long do your ancestors have to have been here before you get called a "native"? The so-called "native" Americans aren't really native, they've just been here longer than my ancestors.
Hey! You know what? I'm offended that American "native" Americans are called "native Americans" when they clearly are not "native". So I don't know what to call them. Should I call the Seattle Times to get some guidance on this issue?
But let anyone tell the Seattle Times that they can’t write whatever they feel like writing and they will scream “censorship”.
How Orwellian that a publication which relies on the First Amendment for its very existence should resort to censorship of a name it finds distasteful. Liberalism writ large.
So what? Early Indians (can I say Indian?) often times had reddish skin from being out in the sun so much. BTW, according to biologists, they are caucasian.
If I ever see or hear any media that includes the terms "white eyes" or "paleface", especially "honkey" (which is the equivalent to the N word), then us caucasians should whine, moan, grown and sue somebody. Hell, the Asians should sue for using part of their their name in the word Cauc-asian.
Unless things have changed, I grew up understanding there were only 3 basic races - caucasian, negro, and asian. Yes, there have become variations from inter-breeding, and ethnicity exists. However, I'm so sick of such thin-skinned people(can I say that?) that need to whine about old labels. Sheesh, get a damn life.
BTW, the term "redneck" started out as derogatory name and now they can laugh at themselves. Why can't others?
No White Sox either, the filthy bigots.
My, don't we give ourselves airs?
There is a certain irony about a city named after a Native American chief taking this course of action. Chief Sealth was mocked and shoved into the street, after all. Perhaps the city should be renamed to "Maynard" after that remarkable fellow, or "Yesler". I'm sure the anti-colonialist PC crowd at the Times would be horrified, but it would be consistent with their own policy. But don't hold your breath.
Maybe they think the Redskins are from their state.
Then you could go to the game and play some slots afterward.
Wonder how the “Times” will reference the State of Oklahoma?
It occurs to me that if this trademark decision is allow edit o stand, than any “yahoo” with a printer can slap the Redskins logo on jars of beans, sauce, salad dressing, whatever, and sell them direct to other “yahoos” who want the stuff. And you know that there would be a demand for it.
Does anybody still read that fish wrapper?
No mention that the name “seattle” is a white man’s bastardization of a Dkhw’Duw’Absh (Duwamish) chief’s name (sealth)
Why now? What is the difference between now and last year, or five years ago? They want to sound principled but are really just jumping on the PC bandwagon with everyone else.
I guess I for one will never know they didn’t use the Redskins name.
“Still, your feedback won’t change our decision,” Shelton wrote. “Some things are too important to be put to a vote.”
Said the man trying to sell an easily replaceable product...
I say swap the profile with George Washington’s. Call it the Washington Army.
What a bunch of idiots. Sheesh.
I believe that all trademark rights associated with the name “Seahawks” be revoked IMMEDIATELY.
That term is an objectionable affront against Gaia, since there is no such creature in Nature, and it’s emblematic of Man’s arrogance to think he can create one purely for personal profit.......