Dana Loesch defends Washington NFL Team's racist name, slams USPTO for denying "Redskins" trademark

Tea Party moron Dana Loesch is defending the awful racist slur of Washington NFL Team's nickname, the "Redskins" by falsely claiming that the term honors Native Americans.

She even got cheapshots in at Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). She slammed the United States Patent and Trademark Office for correctly denying the name.

Here are Loesch's tweets slamming the USPTO's decision:

More false logic from Loesch. The Blackhawks, Braves, Cleveland Indians team name, and Oklahoma's names honor Native American heritage respectfully, whereas the Washington NFL Team name and Cleveland Indians mascot Chief Wahoo do not.

TOTAL LIE. Sen. Warren did NOT exploit her Native American ancestry.

Sorry, Dana, but the $20 will NOT be taken out of circulation; however, Andrew Jackson can be replaced with someone else more deserving.

The name "Redskins" does NOT honor Native American heritage (considering then-owner George P. Marshall was a vicious racist), you doofus!

Gary Legum hits back at Loesch's falsehood-ridden statement that "Dems are the ones who hate Native Americans."

Lindsey Adler at BuzzFeed:
recent study by the California State University, San Bernadino reports 67% of Native Americans find the Washington Redskins name and imagery racist.
12 percent of Native respondents were neutral and 20 percent disagreed. In contrast, 60 percent of white respondents do not find the name racist. When asked if they found the term “disrespectful,” the number of positive respondents rose to 68%.
This debunks the "90% of Native Americans support keeping the 'Redskins'" canard in the infamous 2004 Annenberg poll espoused by anti-DC NFL Team name change folks like Loesch.

Travis Waldron at Think Progress Sports:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled six federal trademark registrations for the name of the Washington "Redskins", ruling that the name is “disparaging to Native Americans” and thus cannot be trademarked under federal law that prohibits the protection of offensive or disparaging language. 
The U.S. PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board issued a ruling in the case, brought against the team by plaintiff Amanda Blackhorse, Wednesday morning.
“We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,” the board wrote in its opinion, which is here. A brief explanation of how the Board reached its decision is here. 
“The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agreed with our clients that the team’s name and trademarks disparage Native Americans. The Board ruled that the Trademark Office should never have registered these trademarks in the first place,” Jesse Witten, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, said in a press release. “We presented a wide variety of evidence – including dictionary definitions and other reference works, newspaper clippings, movie clips, scholarly articles, expert linguist testimony, and evidence of the historic opposition by Native American groups – to demonstrate that the word ‘redskin’ is an ethnic slur.”
Kudos to the USPTO, even it pisses off the pro-keep the "Redskins" name crowd.

Neil Irwin at The New York Times on the future of the DC NFL Team's name: 
We can only guess the exact volume and color of the steam coming out of Daniel Snyder’s ears right about now. Wednesday morning, the United States Patent and Trademark Office canceled the trademark for the Washington Redskins, the pro football team that Mr. Snyder owns — and that he has steadfastly refused to rename, amid accusations that its mascot is racist.
It’s important to be clear on what the ruling from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruling means and doesn’t mean. It does not prohibit Mr. Snyder from using “Redskins” as the team’s name. It merely prevents him from using the court system to prevent others from using the term.
One could now imagine someone opening the “Redskins Bar & Grill” without paying a royalty to Mr. Snyder, though that opens up an awkward Catch-22: It’s legal to use the name because a government commission found it disparages Native Americans, but you would then own a restaurant whose name disparages a minority group.

And Mr. Snyder and the team will assuredly challenge the ruling in federal court. Native American groups won their case before the trademark appeal board once before, in 1999, only to have it overturned by a United States District Court. And there was a dissent in the ruling by the trademark review board this time around. (Amusingly, even the dissenter, Marc Bergsman, seemed to distance himself from the name, writing, “I am not suggesting that the term “redskins” was not disparaging in 1967, 1974, 1978, and 1990 … Rather, my conclusion is that the evidence petitioners put forth fails to show that it was.”)
But it’s hard to view the new ruling as anything other than the beginning of the end of the name. It has now been assailed not just by Native American groups but by the president of the United States and half the Senate, which ultimately controls the various tax and legal advantages the N.F.L. enjoys. Players in football and many other sports are now routinely asked their view of the name, and their evident discomfort with it is rising.
Yep. Time to change the name of Washington's godawful team name.

No comments :

Post a Comment

Tweets by @JGibsonDem Tweets by @JPCTumblr