4 ms·
The poll choice was either "do you find the name offensive, or doesn't it bother you?". There are many reasons people may want something to change. I want more
by dalke 10y ago
The poll choice was either "do you find the name offensive, or doesn't it bother you?".
There are many reasons people may want something to change. I want more dedicated cycling paths. That doesn't mean that streets offend me.
I can imagine that people will not agree to being described as "offended" because it carries with it a sense of hypersensitivity or egoism. Here's a 1982 Bloom County cartoon poking fun at people who are offended - http://www.gocomics.com/bloomcounty/1982/11/14/ http://www.gocomics.com/bloomcounty/1982/11/14/ .
Why couldn't the question be "do you want the Washington Redskins to change their name?", rather than require an emotional reason for the change?
Also, you should not place weight in the statement: "What makes those attitudes more striking: The general public appears to object more strongly to the name than Indians do."
The ESPN poll asked the question "should the Redskins change their team name, or not?" Which is the question the WaPo would have to ask in order to compare the results of the two polls.
- gnicholas 10y agoDefinitely agree that it's not apples to apples to compare the two poll results. It would also be interesting to see what Native Americans say about whether they would like the name to be changed. But the legal question at issue is perhaps more closely aligned with the poll question that was asked. That is, the USPTO doesn't strictly care whether people want the name changed—they only care about whether it is offensive to people. Either way, of course, this is a very fuzzy test, and likely to leave someone upset at the end of the day
- dalke 10y agoAs I understand it, the complaint isn't that the term is "offensive", but that it's "disparaging". Here's the USPTO decision for "Washington Redskins Potatoes" (quoting https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140319/11225326627/uspto-again-redskin-cant-be-trademarked-because-its-horribly-racist-term.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140319/11225326627/uspto... ): > "Registration is refused because the applied-for mark includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols," the decision, handed down on March 17, says. It concludes: "Given that "REDSKIN" in the mark is a derogatory slang term that refers to, and is considered offensive by, American Indians, registration of the applied-for mark must be refused" under the Trademark Act, a 1946 law that prohibits the trademarking of offensive or derogatory terms. The examining attorney's decision cites dictionary definitions of the word "Redskins" that say it is "usually offensive" or "offensive slang," and it also notes that groups like the National Congress of American Indians and the Oneida Indian Nation regard the word as a disparaging slur. To my limited understanding, it appears that if the term "Viking" were a disparaging term, with a long history of being used that way, then the Minnesota Vikings could not trademark their name, even though the Norse are long dead, so cannot be offended.
- gnicholas 10y agoYou raise an interesting philosophical/linguistic question about the nature of "offensive." Certainly one has to exist to be offended, but I'm not 100% sure that means that something cannot be "offensive" if there is no one to be offended. For example, if you make a crude remark about a baby, or someone who does not understand your language, have you not said something that is "offensive"? Academics could argue about this (in peer-reviewed journals) for years. Regardless, you're absolutely right that the Vikings should have been listed also—can't believe I missed that one!
- dalke 10y agoWell, I was hoping to point out that "offensive" wasn't relevant. The trademark question is based on "disparaging", not "offensive".