Weebly



Document A: “The Song of Greatness” Chippewa Tribe SongWhen I hear the old menTelling of heroes, Telling of great deedsOf ancient days—5When I hear that telling, Then I think within me I, too, am one of these.When I hear the peoplePraising great ones,Then I know that I too—10Shall be esteemed;I, too, when my time comesShall do mightily.Document B: “Sure You Can Ask Me a Personal Question” by Native American poet Diane BurnsI can't remember when I first encountered this poem. I know I stumbled on it accidently, I think while doing some on-line research during my days as an employee of the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian. We had launched a poetry feature called "Pulling Down the Clouds" for our membership magazine, and I was always on the lookout for interesting Native work to run as the focus of the feature. I knew immediately I wanted this poem in the magazine. I loved its directness, its snarly, unapologetic, in-your-face attitude. Its completely sophisticated, contemporary use of language. This was not work that catered to white assumptions and stereotypes: just the opposite, in fact. Hers is a complex voice in which humor, bitterness, and hipness all coexist in service to the poem. This was a voice like that of many of my Indian friends and colleagues, but one rarely heard by the non-Native world (at least beyond the pages of a Sherman Alexie book). Further investigation revealed that the poem was written in 1989 and that Diane Burns, a Lac Courte Oreilles/Chemeheuvi, was born in 1957 and had passed away in 2006. She "first emerged," we told our readers, "as a powerful literary voice in the 1970s working as a poet and model in New York City. Burns’s first and only book of poetry, Riding the One-Eyed Ford (Contact II Publications, 1981), further established her reputation as a unique talent by challenging Native American stereotypes through sharp wit and honesty. In the 1980s, Burns joined a circle of poets and writers in Manhattan’s Lower East Side, reading her work at the renowned Bowery Poetry Club and Poetry Project at St. Mark's Church in-the-Bowery." ________________________Sure You Can Ask Me A Personal QuestionHow do you do? No, I am not Chinese. No, not Spanish. No, I am American Indian, Native American. 5No, not from India. No, not Apache No, not Navajo. No, not Sioux. No, we are not extinct. 10Yes, Indian. Oh? So that's where you got those high cheekbones. Your great grandmother, huh? An Indian Princess, huh? 15Hair down to there? Let me guess. Cherokee? Oh, so you've had an Indian friend? That close? Oh, so you've had an Indian lover? 20That tight? Oh, so you've had an Indian servant? That much? Yeah, it was awful what you guys did to us. It's real decent of you to apologize. 25No, I don't know where you can get peyote. No, I don't know where you can get Navajo rugs real cheap. No, I didn't make this. I bought it at Bloomingdales. Thank you. I like your hair too. I don't know if anyone knows whether or not Cher 30is really Indian. No, I didn't make it rain tonight. Yeah. Uh-huh. Spirituality. Uh-huh. Yeah. Spirituality. Uh-huh. Mother Earth. Yeah. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Spirituality. 35No, I didn't major in archery. Yeah, a lot of us drink too much. Some of us can't drink enough. This ain't no stoic look. This is my face.Document C 1: Native American graphic depictions“Can A Mascot Really Cause Psychological Harm?”NOVEMBER 12, 201311:25 AM ET-2286001016000A Washington Redskins fan watches the game in Landover, Md.Nick Wass/APThe adults continue to argue over the Washington Redskins football team's name. Native Americans and others say the name is a racial slur, and should be changed. The NFL and many fans say that in sports, tradition is important too.But a recent report commissioned by the Oneida Indian Nation, which has advocated for a name change, suggests that the debate should consider the children. The report suggests that the mascot, and others like it, may actually be harming Native American children and teens. It was written by clinical psychologist Michael Friedman and presented to the NFL at a recent meeting.Tell Me More host Michel Martin speaks with Friedman and NPR science correspondent Shankar Vedantam about the research. Also joining the conversation is Wilson Pipestem, a dad of four and member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe.Interview Highlights"Your view of Native Americans gets worse"Friedman: A series of studies show that if Native Americans are shown images of stereotypical Native American mascots ... self-esteem goes down, belief in community goes down, belief in achievement goes down, and mood goes down. And these effects are primarily among Native American adolescents. Similarly, if someone who is non-Native American sees a stereotypical image of a Native American mascot, their association with the Native American community also gets worse. So whoever you are, if you see these images your view of Native Americans gets worse."Are they making fun of us, Dad?"Pipestem: One day at the dinner table, my oldest son, Truman, said kids at school are wearing these Washington football jerseys and other wear. ... It was before a game, and my second son said, "Are they making fun of us, Dad?" I said we need to sit down and talk about this.Our children are very involved in the traditional and ceremonial life of our tribes, and we've taught them that our creator has given us eagle feathers as a way to pray ... and that ceremonial uses of paint have meaning, and these are all good things, and it's good to be an Indian person. When they see things that are different, they were troubled by it. My wife and I tried to teach them that this sort of ignorance is not meant to be personal to you; it's just [that] there are these things in our society that are part of the institution that are just not right and someday they'll change.On unconscious effects of the mascotVedantam: [The data help] us get past what's been a constant refrain in the debate over these mascots. One side says, "Look, we're offended." The other side says, "Look, we don't mean to give any offense." And you end up with a he-said, she-said battle of opinions. ... The data seem to show at a pretty general level that there is a disconnect between how people think about these issues consciously and unconsciously. So you can have very positive views about a team mascot like the Redskins, and genuinely and sincerely say you are supportive of the team and think about the mascot in a positive way. While, at an unconscious level, the mascot could be having negative effects on you and the people who are hearing you talk about those terms.Document C2“Washington Redskins: Symbol of pride or prejudice?”by?Darko Debogovic?-?Oct 15, 2013The Washington Redskins have had their racially offensive mascot for 81 years and owner Dan Snyder has no plans to change it because he feels that he is representing “strength, courage, pride and respect.” Photo courtesy of MCTAlthough our society has made tremendous leaps in eliminating discrimination and inequality throughout the 21st century, one NFL franchise proves time and time again that ethnic stereotyping is not dead.For 81 years the Washington Redskins organization (founded in 1932) has profited off a logo that is chauvinistic and racist toward Native American people.According to the?Racial Slur Database, the term Redskin “came from two places, the skin color, then the cruel torture of skinning Native Americans for a bounty. Since their skin was red they started saying ‘red skins.’”What makes matters worse is that the Redskins operate out of Washington D.C., our country’s capital.If America is synonymous with change and freedom then how can our country’s most popular sport promote an organization that perpetuates offensive, demeaning stereotypes?Consider what would happen if tomorrow the Redskins changed their name and logo to the “Negroes,” “Chinks,” or “Spics.” There would be public outrage, civil right lawsuits and perhaps even riots.An organization claiming to represent “strength, courage, pride and respect,”?as stated by owner Daniel Snyder, should not endorse a racially offensive trademark.So why won’t Snyder change the team’s name?Because of the franchises’ 81 year history and the fear of losing his fan base (or his revenue) by adopting a new name (see the popularity of the NBA’s Charlotte Bobcats or New Orleans Pelicans).Replicating a brand that has endured 81 years of success would be difficult, but Snyder wouldn’t have to change the team’s logo.Other popular sports franchises that utilize a Native American moniker as their mascot have done so without conjuring offensive racial slurs.There’s the MLB’s Atlanta Braves, the NHL’s Chicago Blackhawks, the NBA’s Golden State Warriors and the NFL’s Kansas City Chiefs. Not to mention the various universities that have a Native American mascot: Florida State University Seminoles, San Diego State Aztecs, and Utah Utes are just some examples.If Washington was a viable contender for the Super Bowl – or at least the playoffs, Snyder would have no difficulty generating attention and revenue.It’s shocking to think that a name which invokes the atrocious, horrendous treatment of Native Americans in this country (at the hands of our European predecessors) has taken so long to become a topic of controversy.Although this issue has just surfaced publicly, protests and lawsuits have occurred in the past.Following the Redskins’ Super Bowl victory in 1992,?Native Americans petitioned former owner Jack Kent Cooke to change the team’s name. ?Approximately 2,000 Native Americans from local tribes?attended Super Bowl 26,?including the National Congress of American Indians and the American Indian Movement.In a 1992?article?from the Philadelphia Inquirer Charlene Teters of the Native American Students for Progress stated: “The fact that a football team in the nation’s capital could be named the Redskins in this day and age shows how pathetically ignorant this country is.”Amanda Blackhorse, a 31-year-old Navajo social worker, was part of the group that petitioned to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to revoke the trademark to the Redskins name in 2006.Blackhorse hoped?the lawsuit?would create a large enough financial debt that would force Snyder to drop the name altogether.Even President Obama recently expressed his opinion regarding the Redskins in an?interview with the Associated Press.“If I were the owner of the team and I knew that the name of my team, even if they’ve had a storied history, that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it,” Obama said.Dan Snyder, if you want your franchise to reflect the values of “strength, courage, pride and respect,” please do this country and yourself a favor and change the name of your team once and for all.Document D: Jefferson’s Second InauguralSecond Inaugural AddressMarch 4, 1805Proceeding, fellow citizens, to that qualification which the constitution requires, before my entrance on the charge again conferred upon me, it is my duty to express the deep sense I entertain of this new proof of confidence from my fellow citizens at large, and the zeal with which it inspires me, so to conduct myself as may best satisfy their just expectations.On taking this station on a former occasion, I declared the principles on which I believed it my duty to administer the affairs of our commonwealth. My conscience tells me that I have, on every occasion, acted up to that declaration, according to its obvious import, and to the understanding of every candid mind.In the transaction of your foreign affairs, we have endeavored to cultivate the friendship of all nations, and especially of those with which we have the most important relations. We have done them justice on all occasions, favored where favor was lawful, and cherished mutual interests and intercourse on fair and equal terms. We are firmly convinced, and we act on that conviction, that with nations, as with individuals, our interests soundly calculated, will ever be found inseparable from our moral duties; and history bears witness to the fact, that a just nation is taken on its word, when recourse is had to armaments and wars to bridle others.At home, fellow citizens, you best know whether we have done well or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal taxes. These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from reaching successively every article of produce and property. If among these taxes some minor ones fell which had not been inconvenient, it was because their amount would not have paid the officers who collected them, and because, if they had any merit, the state authorities might adopt them, instead of others less approved.The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles, is paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, what farmer, what mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gatherer of the United States? These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the government, to fulfil contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish the native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to apply such a surplus to our public debts, as places at a short day their final redemption, and that redemption once effected, the revenue thereby liberated may, by a just repartition among the states, and a corresponding amendment of the constitution, be applied, _in time of peace_, to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each state. _In time of war_, if injustice, by ourselves or others, must sometimes produce war, increased as the same revenue will be increased by population and consumption, and aided by other resources reserved for that crisis, it may meet within the year all the expenses of the year, without encroaching on the rights of future generations, by burdening them with the debts of the past. War will then be but a suspension of useful works, and a return to a state of peace, a return to the progress of improvement.I have said, fellow citizens, that the income reserved had enabled us to extend our limits; but that extension may possibly pay for itself before we are called on, and in the meantime, may keep down the accruing interest; in all events, it will repay the advances we have made. I know that the acquisition of Louisiana has been disapproved by some, from a candid apprehension that the enlargement of our territory would endanger its union. But who can limit the extent to which the federative principle may operate effectively? The larger our association, the less will it be shaken by local passions; and in any view, is it not better that the opposite bank of the Mississippi should be settled by our own brethren and children, than by strangers of another family? With which shall we be most likely to live in harmony and friendly intercourse?In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.The aboriginal inhabitants of these countries I have regarded with the commiseration their history inspires. Endowed with the faculties and the rights of men, breathing an ardent love of liberty and independence, and occupying a country which left them no desire but to be undisturbed, the stream of overflowing population from other regions directed itself on these shores; without power to divert, or habits to contend against, they have been overwhelmed by the current, or driven before it; now reduced within limits too narrow for the hunter's state, humanity enjoins us to teach them agriculture and the domestic arts; to encourage them to that industry which alone can enable them to maintain their place in existence, and to prepare them in time for that state of society, which to bodily comforts adds the improvement of the mind and morals. We have therefore liberally furnished them with the implements of husbandry and household use; we have placed among them instructors in the arts of first necessity; and they are covered with the aegis of the law against aggressors from among ourselves.But the endeavors to enlighten them on the fate which awaits their present course of life, to induce them to exercise their reason, follow its dictates, and change their pursuits with the change of circumstances, have powerful obstacles to encounter; they are combated by the habits of their bodies, prejudice of their minds, ignorance, pride, and the influence of interested and crafty individuals among them, who feel themselves something in the present order of things, and fear to become nothing in any other. These persons inculcate a sanctimonious reverence for the customs of their ancestors; that whatsoever they did, must be done through all time; that reason is a false guide, and to advance under its counsel, in their physical, moral, or political condition, is perilous innovation; that their duty is to remain as their Creator made them, ignorance being safety, and knowledge full of danger; in short, my friends, among them is seen the action and counteraction of good sense and bigotry; they, too, have their anti-philosophers, who find an interest in keeping things in their present state, who dread reformation, and exert all their faculties to maintain the ascendency of habit over the duty of improving our reason, and obeying its mandates.In giving these outlines, I do not mean, fellow citizens, to arrogate to myself the merit of the measures; that is due, in the first place, to the reflecting character of our citizens at large, who, by the weight of public opinion, influence and strengthen the public measures; it is due to the sound discretion with which they select from among themselves those to whom they confide the legislative duties; it is due to the zeal and wisdom of the characters thus selected, who lay the foundations of public happiness in wholesome laws, the execution of which alone remains for others; and it is due to the able and faithful auxiliaries, whose patriotism has associated with me in the executive functions.During this course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science, are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness, and to sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation.Nor was it uninteresting to the world, that an experiment should be fairly and fully made, whether freedom of discussion, unaided by power, is not sufficient for the propagation and protection of truth -- whether a government, conducting itself in the true spirit of its constitution, with zeal and purity, and doing no act which it would be unwilling the whole world should witness, can be written down by falsehood and defamation. The experiment has been tried; you have witnessed the scene; our fellow citizens have looked on, cool and collected; they saw the latent source from which these outrages proceeded; they gathered around their public functionaries, and when the constitution called them to the decision by suffrage, they pronounced their verdict, honorable to those who had served them, and consolatory to the friend of man, who believes he may be intrusted with his own affairs.No inference is here intended, that the laws, provided by the State against false and defamatory publications, should not be enforced; he who has time, renders a service to public morals and public tranquillity, in reforming these abuses by the salutary coercions of the law; but the experiment is noted, to prove that, since truth and reason have maintained their ground against false opinions in league with false facts, the press, confined to truth, needs no other legal restraint; the public judgment will correct false reasonings and opinions, on a full hearing of all parties; and no other definite line can be drawn between the inestimable liberty of the press and its demoralizing licentiousness. If there be still improprieties which this rule would not restrain, its supplement must be sought in the censorship of public opinion.Contemplating the union of sentiment now manifested so generally, as auguring harmony and happiness to our future course, I offer to our country sincere congratulations. With those, too, not yet rallied to the same point, the disposition to do so is gaining strength; facts are piercing through the veil drawn over them; and our doubting brethren will at length see, that the mass of their fellow citizens, with whom they cannot yet resolve to act, as to principles and measures, think as they think, and desire what they desire; that our wish, as well as theirs, is, that the public efforts may be directed honestly to the public good, that peace be cultivated, civil and religious liberty unassailed, law and order preserved; equality of rights maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry, or that of his fathers. When satisfied of these views, it is not in human nature that they should not approve and support them; in the meantime, let us cherish them with patient affection; let us do them justice, and more than justice, in all competitions of interest; and we need not doubt that truth, reason, and their own interests, will at length prevail, will gather them into the fold of their country, and will complete their entire union of opinion, which gives to a nation the blessing of harmony, and the benefit of all its strength.I shall now enter on the duties to which my fellow citizens have again called me, and shall proceed in the spirit of those principles which they have approved. I fear not that any motives of interest may lead me astray; I am sensible of no passion which could seduce me knowingly from the path of justice; but the weakness of human nature, and the limits of my own understanding, will produce errors of judgment sometimes injurious to your interests. I shall need, therefore, all the indulgence I have heretofore experienced -- the want of it will certainly not lessen with increasing years. I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence, and our riper years with his wisdom and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications, that he will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do, shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.Document E: Article on Washington Redskins“Retired Native American Chief Would Be Offended If Redskins Did Change?Name”by Chris LingebachMay 29, 2013 4:38 PM2159005207000A Washington Redskins fan cheers during their NFC Wild Card Playoff Game against the Seattle Seahawks at FedExField on January 6, 2013. (Credit: Patrick McDermott/Getty Images)WASHINGTON (CBSDC) –?Days ago, ten members of Congress?sent letters?to?NFL?Commissioner Roger Goodell, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, and the team’s stadium naming rights holder FedEx, along with the league’s 31 other franchises, urging them to have ‘Redskins’ changed due to the name’s offensive nature.In response, the longtime chief of a major Virginia-based tribe went on the record to say he’d actually be offended if the team DID change the name.Virginia?Senator: Redskins Logo is a ‘Symbol of Unity’Robert “Two Eagles” Green, who?retired?from his presiding role over the 1300-member Patawomeck Tribe in March, was a guest on SiriusXM NFL Radio’s “The Opening Drive” on Wednesday.He gave a detailed?account?of the origin of the term Redskin, why so many people are offended by it, and how political correctness has allowed this story to fester far longer than it should.“I think that first of all, you have to make a decision whether you consider it offensive or not, and frankly, the members of my tribe, the vast majority, don’t find it offensive,” Green said. “I’ve been a Redskins fan for years and to be honest with you, I would be offended if they did change it.”Earlier this month, Snyder?told the USA Today?“We’ll never change the name,” but instead of bringing finality to the debate, his words seemed to spark controversy on a national level, bringing activists from both sides out of the woodwork to fan the flames.Chief Green’s research indicates the common misconception is to think the term was originally used as a racial epithet to denigrate Native people; that the label was actually self-applied, and was used quite frequently during interactions with early settlers.Here’s a blow-by-blow of the interview, in which each nuance of the great debate is addressed.Why are people offended by it?“Well I think that, first of all, our country has become too politically correct. And you can find it in any number of areas. Little League, where everybody has to get a trophy now, or otherwise, the poor child that doesn’t get a trophy will have his psyche hurt.”Origin of the Name“And I think what you have to do is look at where the term Redskin was originated. There’s some that give the term Redskins a negative connotation to indicate that it was created by the white man, to offend the Indians. But in reality, the term Redskins came from the Indians. And they referred to themselves often times, in treaty negotiations and meetings with the early settlers, as Redskins.“So it’s not a term that the white man created. It’s actually a term that the Indians themselves created. I just think we have people in this country that try and gin up problems that don’t exist.”“Now, our investigation into the term goes back pretty far – to 1608 – when John Smith was traveling from Jamestown to meet with the Indian people, and he remarked in his diary that when they’re born, they’re as white as we are. It’s only as they age that their?skin?darkens.“And we believe that that was a reason for that. We use a bug repellant, for lack of a better term, that was made up of animal fat and the dye of the? HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" Puccoon plant. And coincidentally, the Puccoon dye, when it’s crushed and dyed, is red. And so for years, the Indian people were rubbing this red dye into their skin. And some of the other early settlers remarked that their skin turns red. So, was that a comment meant to denigrate the Indian people? I don’t think so. I don’t think the name was created by George Preston Marshall to be offensive.”The Logo“And if you look at the logo, there’s nothing offensive about the logo. I think one of the great things about the logo is that it’s an Eastern Indian, and they didn’t go to the full warhead headdress and things. It was never intended to be offensive. I think that sometimes, we’re a little too touchy in our society these days.”Document F: US Patent Office Decision“US Patent Office ruling cancels 'disparaging' Redskins trademark”By Mario Trujillo - 06/18/14 03:04 PM EDTMust also watch video: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancelled the trademark on the Washington Redskins name and some logos on Wednesday, calling them disparaging to Native Americans. [READ THE RULING.]The 2-1 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision would strip the NFL team of all legal benefits afforded to registering a trademark with the federal government if the cancellation goes into effect, though the team would still be free to use its nickname and Indian head logo.The football team quickly vowed to appeal the decision, and expressed confidence that the courts would toss out the decision to cancel trademarks on the team logos that include the "Redskins" name just as they rejected an earlier Patent Office ruling against the Redskins.“The evidence in the current claim is virtually identical to the evidence a federal judge decided was insufficient more than ten years ago,” Redskins lawyer Bob Raskopf said in a statement. “We expect the same ultimate outcome here.”Activists have long sought to eliminate the Redskins name, arguing it is a racist term against American Indians. Redskins owner Daniel Snyder and his supporters have argued there is a long tradition of using the name, and that many Native Americans support it.While the fight has been going on for decades, it has intensified in political circles in recent years, with 50 Democratic senators calling for the team to change its name and President Obama also saying he’d think about changing the name if he were the team’s owner.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been particularly vocal, and recently said he would not attend a Washington football game until the team changes its name.He cheered the Patent Office’s decision on Wednesday.“Daniel Snyder may be the last person in the world to realize this, but it’s just a matter of time until he’s forced to do the right thing and change the name,” Reid said.The Patent Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruled that the evidence showed six Redskins trademarks were “disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,” and as a result should be canceled.The office made a similar ruling in 1999, but the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia reversed the board's decision after a lengthy litigation process in 2003.If the cancellation goes into effect, the team would lose ownership of the symbol, meaning it could not block the “importation of infringing or counterfeit foreign goods.” The patent office notes that the team could still have some common law rights in ownership of the logo.The team has one of two avenues to contest the ruling. It could either appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or take civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which has jurisdiction.Rebecca Tushnet, a Georgetown law professor who focuses on trademark disputes, said the ruling would likely not cost the team money in the short term, aside from legal fees. She said the team likely has a “better than average” chance of success on appeal.“The Federal Circuit is not particularly deferential to the TTAB, so in that sense its chances are better than average,” she said.The board said six of the Redskins’s trademarks are subject to cancellation proceedings, including a number of trademarks used in radio, television and print.The ruling found evidence that the term was disparaging to Native Americans when the trademarks were issued. The board rejected the defense that the trademarks have already been around for so long and a significant amount of investment in them had already been made.The team has registered different logos and trademarks associated with Redskins over several different years, beginning in 1967 when it registered a simple cursive "The Redskins" logo. In 1990, it registered as a trademark several other words, including "Redskinettes" for "cheerleaders who perform dance routines at professional football games."Board member Marc Bergsman dissented, saying the petitioners used much of the same evidence “previously found insufficient” in the earlier case.“By this dissent, I am not suggesting that the term ‘redskins’ was not disparaging. ... Rather, my conclusion is that the evidence petitioners put forth fails to show that it was,” Bergsman said.One of the tests of whether a term is disparaging is if a substantial group believes it to be. To prove this, The majority largely relied on a 1993 resolution condemning the name passed by the National Council of American Indians, which the majority says represented 30 percent of Native Americans, a substantial number.Bergsman said evidence is lacking that that the vote actually represented 30 percent of Native Americans.The two panelists who voted for the majority argued that resolution showed a substantial group found the term “Redskins” to be disparaging.The new petition was brought by five individual Native Americans; the case is known as Blackhorse V. Pro Football, Inc.The previous legal dispute was complicated and the final ruling did not hinge on whether the logo was disparaging to Native Americans, leaving that question open.In the earlier case, The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially ruled that the board lacked “substantial evidence” that the logo was disparaging. The court also ruled that the petitioners had waited too long to bring the case.Specifically, they said the earlier petitioners had turned 18 years old, but did not challenge the name for years.The current case included younger petitioners, some 18 years old when the petition was first filed, to avoid the charge that they waited too long to bring the case.“Here, the people seeking cancellation were all too young to sue until recently, so the court can't say they waited too long to sue,” Tushnet said.Document G: Editorial on Fed DecisionEDITORIAL: Feds patently wrong about the Redskins nameTeam’s moniker is one signifying courage, not contemptBy THE WASHINGTON TIMES - - Wednesday, June 18, 2014White man truly speak with forked tongue. In a ruling as slippery as Bill Clinton’s famous definition of what the meaning of the word “is” is, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decided Wednesday to cancel the Washington Redskins‘ trademarks. President Obama suggested in October that the football team should “think about changing” its name, and here we are in June, and the administration is trying to force it to comply. Funny how that works.Federal trademark law doesn’t allow registration of a trademark that “may disparage” individuals or groups or “bring them into contempt or disrepute.” That little helper verb “may” is the thin reed seized on by a small gaggle of aggrieved opportunists who insist the name disparages Indians. They insist the government must force the team’s owner, Dan Snyder, to change it.The Redskins will appeal the decision in federal court, just as it did after the Patent Office under Mr. Clinton tried to do the same thing years earlier. The 1999 Patent Office ruling was overturned by a federal judge after a pointless legal battle dragged on for four years.“We’ve seen this story before,” said Bob Raskopf, trademark lawyer for the team. “And just like last time, today’s ruling will have no effect at all on the team’s ownership of, and right to use, the Redskins name and logo.” The trademark board’s ruling is on hold while on appeal, so the only thing certain to happen in the months ahead is that the lawyers will rack up billable hours at the expense of the fans. Everything is passed along. Washington will continue to cheer for its beloved ‘Skins.Wednesday’s ruling would deprive Mr. Snyder and the Redskins of valuable private-property rights. The team has not won a Super Bowl in two decades, but it’s the third most valuable franchise in the league, according to a Forbes magazine valuation of NFL teams. The Redskins are worth $1.7 billion, behind only the Dallas Cowboys and the New England Patriots, and $145 million of that worth comes from “branding,” selling things with the Redskins name on it.Were the ruling to stand, bootleggers could pump out cheap jerseys, jackets and other trinkets bearing the team’s logo and name without the team collecting licensing fees. It could even make the Redskins name and logo even more pervasive than it is now.Despite a well-orchestrated public relations pressure campaign that has been joined by the usual cadre of liberal special-interest groups, polls have consistently found that there’s never been more than a tiny minority of the public at large and, more importantly, of American Indians themselves, who think the name is offensive. Ninety percent of the American Indians told pollsters for the Annenberg Public Policy Center in 2004 that the name didn’t bother them.George Preston Marshall, the founding owner of the club, chose “Redskins” in 1933 to honor Lone Star Dietz, the coach and an American Indian. “I admire the Redskins name,” the late Jack Kent Cooke, whose family sold the team to Dan Snyder in 1999, once said. “I think it stands for bravery, courage and a stalwart spirit, and I see no reason why we shouldn’t continue to use it.”Neither do we, and we think the patent board’s ruling should be sent to an unhappy hunting ground. The shame is that a few malcontents and opportunists are trying to scuttle the image of the brave, courageous and stalwart brave and replace it with the image of weaklings and whiners. Say it ain’t so, Geronimo. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download