While I think the idea of objectifying a class of people in the form of a mascot, as the dc skins, cle indians, and ND fighting irish have done should lead to the loss of the trademark, I don’t think a name change based on the offensiveness of the term redskin alone is justified. It is common practice to refer to groups of people by their skin color, e.g. “being black in america”. Black is short for black skinned, right? Why is it then wrong to use the term red or redskin? redskins is no more offensive than black or white, so i dont think the term should be singled out and lead to the undermining of the trademark and the term itself, not the objectification of a group of people is the basis of the suit.

p.s. Let us save you some trouble son. What size suit you is? This way after the Ruger shoots through a few clips, you can lay in your casket just as you is. We appreciate the target practices, we’ll be sure to send flower baskets kid.

So i guess we aren’t starting a flame war here. How unfortunate. Well, i should probably say thanks but instead i say, Die slow! My .44 makes sure all yall kids dont grow!!!!

re: profitability. Its true that snyder will make a lot of money on merchandise (assuming he doesnt totally disenfranchise his fanbase before then). But I question who has the right to make him earn that money. He knows that he will be forced to change the name sooner or later. theoretically, he might as well make as much money as he can while he can on the old name. Where the line is drawn is a subjective, yet important issue. What if you become a world famous writer and create a brand using your name, griffn, and i, as a hypothetical mythology fan, claim that your name is an offensive bastardization of my chosen god the Griffin. How many fellow worshipers should it take to undermine your billion dollar brand? Realistically, some judge will have to make a judgment call because its reasonable for two logical people to come to a different conclusion regarding the number.

@ cx2020 – I don’t buy the profitability argument. Teams make tons of money every year by coming out with new jerseys and logos, which their fans then scramble to purchase. I realize you’re not arguing this in the Redskins case, but in general if your sports team is using the name of an ethnic group and that ethnic group is protesting your use of their name, I think you have to back down regardless of what the accountants say. I don’t know where the line is– one protester, a hundred, a thousand?– but I would err on the side of the people who actually are those ethnicities, not the universities and franchises who are using those ethnicities to recruit students and sell tickets.

“I no longer own any team apparel, teach kids not to say Redskins, and turn down free tickets to the games, simply because I don’t want to support Dan Snyder even with a food purchase. Let’s not make broad statements about the fans that are unwarranted.”

That sentence I wrote about the unwillingness of Redskins fans and ownership to face up to their franchise’s history doesn’t apply to you. I preceded it with “Every dollar that goes to the Redskins…” Those are the fans I was talking about. I realize there are a good number of Redskins fans who, like you, are actively boycotting, and I respect that tremendously.

It kinda does. Anyone can claim to find something disparaging. If there aren’t enough American Indians raising a fit about the name, then from a business perspective it should matter whether the name was intended to offend. Why cut off a businesses profitability cuz some wacko is offended. Not saying that is the case here, but just sayin.

“It’s an embarrassing testament to the unwillingness of Redskins fans and ownership to face up to their franchise’s original sin.”

It’s pretty clear that it is a stupid name. The demographic area in which the skins reside is largely liberal and open minded. Many fans would like to see the name changed and actively avoid using or representing the name. I no longer own any team apparel, teach kids not to say Redskins, and turn down free tickets to the games, simply because I don’t want to support Dan Snyder even with a food purchase. Let’s not make broad statements about the fans that are unwarranted.

Secondly, I think past intentions shouldn’t even come into this debate. Like the article says…you wouldn’t have a football team with the name coloreds in it, regardless of the fact it wasn’t meant in a derogatory fashion, why redskins then?

More to the commenter’s point, you wouldn’t have a team called the blacks, or the whites, or the japanese…so why is it okay for the Indians?

Previous intentions are irrelevant, people now have the “burden” of have to be socially responsible in 2009. Even responsible for those decisions of the past.