This past week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (specifically, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board) rescinded the trademark registration and protection of the Washington Redskins because it decided the name ‘Redskins’ was, or is, “disparaging to Native Americans.” Clearly, this was another example of a federal organization going above and beyond its legal limitations to spread its politically corrected, socio-political gospel.
One should ask why is the politically-corrected Indian lobby (i.e, politically liberal whites who use Native Americans as political pawns)- with the help of the United States Patent and Trademark Office- going after the Washington Redskins with such indignation, and not going after, with similar moral vigor and indignation- the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, the Florida State Seminoles, the North Dakota Fighting Sioux, the Kansas City Chiefs, the Utah Utes? Why aren’t they persecuting Chrysler to force them stop making Jeep Cherokees, Grand Cherokees and Comanches? Are these groups next or is this misguided and self-righteous crusade simply about the Redskins? And if so, why?
That this cadre of meddlesome fools aren’t going after similarly named mascots proves entirely how truly superficial, trivial, political, subjective and politically correct this entire non-issue is. Because a small minority of sanctimonious people (Harry Reid/Senate Democrats [who haven’t passed a budget in six years, but this is a priority], Bob Costas, Pres. Obama, the Indian Lobby) claims ‘offense,’ the name of a private business must be changed. Never mind that most Native Americans don’t care about the name. It’s the “sensibilities” of white, meddlesome liberals that should now trump private intellectual property rights and justify subjective, irrational decisions. Again, why is this push for a name change just against the Redskins? Why aren’t these thin-skinned, annoying white liberals as agitated not only by the names/mascots of other teams who use AmerIndians as mentioned above, but with the many schools- on Indian reservations or predominately attended by Indians- which have Indians as mascots? The mascot for Lodge Grass High School, in Montana are the ‘Indians’; Heart Butte High are the Warriors, and the Red Mesa High School, on the Navajo Reservation in Red Mesa, Arizona, are also the Redskins. Are self-identifying Native Americans being ‘insensitive’ and ‘discriminatory,’ or engaging in self-hate and ‘disparagement?’
Further, why isn’t the Indian Lobby as apoplectic regarding the names of the Comanche helicopter? The Apache helicopter? The Armed OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter? The Black Hawk helicopter? The Chinook helicopter? The Iroquois helicopter? The Tomahawk missile? Will the US military be the next target of this ‘moral’ crusade, or are the names of these military weapons off limits? If so, why? Are some Indian names and references more offensive than others? If so, based on what criteria- and is that criteria subjective, as is with the case of the Washington Redskins or is the criteria objective? Again, why or why not? Those who support the attempted, forced coercion of the Redskins name change should be able- and forced to- explain specifically why Dan Snyder, the owner of the Redskins, must change the name of his organization, but schools on Indian reservations, multiple colleges and universities, Chrysler and the military are exempt.
And if the Redskins deserve to lose their trademark protections because of the name being offensive, why aren’t these trademarks also rescinded? Aren’t they equally offensive and ‘disparaging?’
The Indian Lobby misunderstands- or more accurately, doesn’t care- that the nature of having mascots is based on the affirming notion of a group/organization intentionally identifying with someone, or something, that the group recognizes as noble and admires for having characteristics in which the group believes are self-reflective, which is why Democrats are asses (see what I did there?). In other words, it’s intentionally self-identifying with that which is revered. The mascot inspires confidence within the group and, at least at one point in time, intimidation of those outside the group. Choosing to be identified as a Redskin, a Warrior, a Seminole, or a Fighting Sioux isn’t meant to disparage; people don’t choose to identify with mascots that are disparaging or that signify weakness.
Also, the term ‘Redskins’ isn’t ‘explicitly’ racial as it’s constantly claimed to be; it’s explicitly descriptive. Referring to the color of one’s skin isn’t explicitly or implicitly racial (the negative connotations of the term) by any stretch of the imagination. People refer to the color of other peoples’ skin all the time (unless it’s the media reporting on black criminality in which it goes out of its way to avoid mentioning the explicit racial description). When people reference race as an explicit description, are they being inherently racist for doing so? Of course not. And more to the point, who uses the term Redskin(s) as a pejorative racial epithet anyway? Of course, white liberals claim it’s a racial epithet, but white liberals have a history and an embarrassingly long list of bad examples of saying many things that, while aren’t true in the least, serves the purposes of their agenda and its implementation.
Frankly, this trivial and insignificant non-issue of forcing the Redskins out of existence is about demonstrating the power and influence of a a very bored, vocal minority in the Indian lobby and the federal government. Never mind the history of the term, its creation and use by… Native Americans. The politically-correct Indian lobby would rather create and fight unserious problems like this while ignoring very real problems that negatively affect the quality of life among Native Americans. For example, almost 30% of Native Americans live in poverty; the illegitimacy rate is 64%; the infant mortality rate is higher than the national average; the destructive affects of alcoholism and binge drinking affect Native Americans disproportionately; the high school graduation rates of Native Americans are lower than the national average; the use and abuse of smoking and other tobacco products are higher than their peers, etc. These are real problems facing Native Americans and are summarily ignored in favor of the trivial, simply so the morally-confused can revel in their own sanctimony. Changing and NFL team’s mascot from the Redskins isn’t going to have any meaningful impact or change the standard of living of Native Americans, no matter how good it makes the Whiteskins feel.
This episode is perfectly reflective of blacks in the media, academia (for sure); politics, the irrelevant so-called civil rights groups, the Black and Racial Grievance Industry (again, many of whom are white liberals and part of the Indian Lobby) who waste enormous and disproportionate amounts of time worrying about insignificant figures like Cliven Bundy or Donald Sterling; or creating and reacting to ‘microaggressions,’ while intentionally ignoring the self-inflicted moral and cultural degradation of the people these so-called representatives claim to represent. Horrible schools, dissolved families, disproportionate representation in violent crime and the penitentiary system, high unemployment, high rates of poverty, etc. are all secondary (and ultimately, insignificant) to the primacy of some intentionally-created racial boogeyman that’s somehow indicative or characteristic of the culture as a whole. Who cares about actual problems; maintaining the racial narrative is paramount.
So, I ask again, where does this crusade end? And how is it justified?
It should be clear that this meaningless crusade is nothing more than out-of-control political correctness, which at its core, is fascism. Aside from the ginned-up non controversy, the fact that the government and its bureaucracy continually seeks to arbitrarily infringe on- and limit- the rights of its citizens w/o proper legal cause should be especially concerning to all.