Priorities: Dopey Dems Look to Ban ‘Redskins’ From Being Trademarked

Posted by on Mar 21, 2013 at 7:51 am

Who said the House Democrats don’t have their priorities in order? So we’re buried under a mountain of debt and have no working budget? These folks need their facetime and how better to get it than playing the race card?

A group of House Democrats on Wednesday introduced a bill that would prevent the term “Redskins” from being trademarked, a move intended to put pressure on the Washington football club to change its name.

The Non-Disparagement of American Indians in Trademark Registrations Act of 2013 is co-sponsored by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), and comes days after a federal trademark panel heard arguments over whether the team name was a slur. The panel could potentially overturn the team’s trademark, which would erode profits by allowing other businesses to sell apparel and goods featuring the Redskins name.

Earlier this month, Norton said the team “should consider” a new name.

Norton should consider shutting the fuck up before she embarrasses herself any further.

“Nobody would let a comparable name to blacks stand,” Norton said, adding that she thinks the team will eventually be forced to make a change.

America, the land of the free and the home of government force.

“I certainly do. But nothing happens without pushing and shoving … I am a fan of the Redskins. I’m just not a fan of their name,” Norton said.

She’s a fan of the Redskins, just not their name. OK, thanks for clearing that up.


Tags: , ,

12 Responses to “Priorities: Dopey Dems Look to Ban ‘Redskins’ From Being Trademarked”

  1. Blue Hen on 21/21/13 at 9:19 am

    They should change their name to the Asian store owners. Oh wait; DC leaders hate Asians too.

    Or they could rename their team to honor the famous crack head Marion Barry. That should be fun.

  2. grognerd on 21/21/13 at 10:39 am

    “Hail to the Washington Bitchsetmeups” just doesn’t seem right.

    I will always be a Washington Redskins fan, until the day they are no longer Washington or no longer Redskins


  3. MT Geoff on 21/21/13 at 10:54 am

    I’m a fence-sitter on this one. The term “redskin” has rarely been a compliment but I’d hate to see the language descend do “r–n” as we see “the n-word”. Neither is an obscenity or a profanity.
    If the term is really offensive, it would be up to the owners to make that decision, but based on their own respect rather than on pressure from the delegate. All the more so in that the ethnic group in question is by no means universal in opposition to the term.
    It would help if the various grievance groups would decide what name suits the group, incidentally. The official government term is “Indian” but of course that’s a misnomer from Columbus’s lousy math and navigation. The term “Native” or “Native American” is popular in Montana, unless a white person says “native”, but then I’m a native. I like the term “First Americans” myself.

  4. Blue Hen on 21/21/13 at 11:11 am

    The term “Native” or “Native American” is popular in Montana, unless a white person says “native”, but then I’m a native. I like the term “First Americans” myself.

    The first Americans would be the first people who sailed for and settled in the Americas. If I was in one spot and a parking lot was built around me, I’m not suddenly the “first car”.

    The most appropriate terms would be “indigenous” or “aborigional”. Good luck getting anyone on board.

  5. Rob Crawford on 21/21/13 at 11:27 am

    Just for this, some biotech firm should engineer bananas with red peels and file a trademark.

  6. Rob Crawford on 21/21/13 at 11:35 am

    ” I like the term “First Americans” myself.”

    How about “first genociders”?

  7. Blue Hen on 21/21/13 at 11:44 am

    ” I like the term “First Americans” myself.”


    Ones who hunt by driving herds off of cliffs


    first slavers

    first warriors on women

  8. Chris W. on 21/21/13 at 12:43 pm

    I’ve associated the word “Redskins” with a tough-nosed football team who’s won several championships my entire (40 year old)life. It has no negative connotation whatsoever. They were named after a formidible foe to start with, like many sports teams. It is a tribute, not a slur.

  9. MT Geoff on 21/21/13 at 2:39 pm

    @4 and friends: Good to stir things up a bit.
    The terms “indigenous” and “aboriginal” could apply but I agree that you’d have a hard time putting them over as positive terms.
    The term “First Americans” comes up because these are the descendants of those who crossed the Bering Strait and spread throughout the Americas. Their cultures formed and developed in the Americas but they, too, are the sons and daughters of immigrants.

  10. Blue Hen on 21/21/13 at 3:14 pm

    The terms don’t merely apply; they are the most apt. They are neither positive or negative.

    Supposedly the term ‘redskins’ is a negative. Okeyfine; replace it with the most appropriate term. If they don’t like it, they can try having a cage match to see what term from over 100 tribes wins.

    We shouldn’t call them the first Americans, because if neanderthals or other peoples were here first, then they would be the ‘first’. And if it turns out that the ‘second’ Americans were responsible for them dying out, then we could commemorate that on….oh, I dunno…Columbus Day maybe.