Should the Washington Redskins Change Their Team Name?

[KnowItAll]

Personally, I would be honored if they would name a helicopter after me. The KIAFYB.

How about Operation FYB to take out Binny boy.

[Toppy Vann]

I get what AIM leader Clyde Bellacourt is saying here when the Redskins and Cleveland Indians get behind and call for scalps being taken and this clips origin of the racist first owner. I get his outrage at the war paint...but for God sake's Clyde could you not rage on about Geronimo as code name for bin Laden? Apache for the killing machine chopper that is still out there in war? Get some consistency and congruency.




I get Clyde's point of John Wayne movies, etc and of course he wants all Indian mascot names to end - ALL of them.

I also get how burying our heads about history that is not that long ago but would be better served if we used these old movies, names etc to teach kids about history and how native Americans were not savages?!!

How Obama can sit there in this video and judge this issue when he sat there watching and listening to Geronimo being used as code name for bin Laden - now that I find abhorrent, disgusting and the most stereotypical - ignoring how the US gov't mistreated, tricked and screwed Geronimo and his people and now using his name as code for a terrorist?

[South Pender]

This by Mike Florio in today's Pro Football Talk:

Civil rights groups urge players to oppose Washington team’s name
Posted by Mike Florio on May 27, 2014, 6:47 PM EDT

Over the weekend, a couple of random Washington players tweeted approval of president/G.M. Bruce Allen’s response to Senator Harry Reid regarding a 50-Senator letter opposing the team name. Now, more than 50 Native American and civil rights groups are urging all other players to take a stand in opposition to the name.

In a letter dated Wednesday but released to the media today, more than 75 different organizations have asked NFL players to speak out against the team’s name. The letter comes less than a week after NFLPA president Eric Winston explained on PFT Live that the players union doesn’t plan to get in the middle of the lingering controversy.

“Despite team officials claiming the name ‘honors’ Native Americans, the ‘R-word’ does exactly the opposite,” the letter states. “It was the word screamed at Native Americans as they were dragged at gunpoint off their lands, it is the word for the object needed to collect a bounty—literally ‘red skins’—ripped from dead Native American bodies and exchanged for money as proof of kill, and it is a term that still denigrates Native Americans today. The name does not honor people of color, instead it seeks to conceal a horrible segment of American history and the countless atrocities suffered by Native Americans.”

The list of organizations sending the letter includes the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and many Native American groups.

“Over and over again, defenders of the name demand to know why advocates for changing the name do not spend time on any of the other critical issues facing Indian Country,” the letter states. “The fact is, this is a critical issue. According to psychologists and public health experts, the NFL’s promotion of this term continues to do great psychological harm to Native Americans, and particularly Native American children. With the NFL spending billions of dollars a year promoting this slur on television and in merchandise across the globe, these children are being constantly told they are savages who should be primarily judged on the basis of their skin color.”

And so the debate will continue to rage and intensify, until the name changes. The broader question for the NFL continues to be whether it wants the debate to continue, or whether it wants to move on from an issue that the organization owned by Daniel Snyder feels destined to eventually lose.

Regardless of the team’s various self-serving arguments for keeping the name it’s had for eight decades, it’s time for Commissioner Roger Goodell and influential owners like Robert Kraft, Dan Rooney, and Jerry Jones to find a way to help Snyder find his way out of the maze into which questionable P.R. tactics over the last year have placed him. Actually, that effort is overdue. With each passing day, more and more people realize it.
_________________________________________________

The psychological damage to Native Americans (especially children) that I' ve been mentioning--and which is strongly confirmed by the empirical research--is noted in the above piece.

[Toppy Vann]

Given the fan behaviour with the Indians and Redskins then I'd abandon my view that the name should be made respectful and stand for bravery, courage and good things.

But I also get how the natives say naming teams after them is wrong and few other examples other than say Montreal Canadiens - the Habs - come to mind with other groups.

I think this too is bad and while I like for the most part the US President, he needs to be congruent on these issues. He says one thing and does another it seems but this was shocking to me when they did this Geronimo for Bin Laden. How could he have not known in advance and ordered that name changed!?

This article makes sense to me on the military names and the sordid use of Geronimo for bin Laden. I am not posting this to argue against the name change but to show this issue and how this is so pervasively damaging:

http://www.indiancountrynews.com/editor ... an-country

[WestCoastJoe]

I concede the damage to kids, natives etc of using these names for sports teams.

Cleanse them all out - the entire list including Reds, Seahawks, Blackhawks - any thing with an Indian reference in it.

But how come it is not damaging to have this occur?

1. Apache 'chopper - reputed to be one of the best killing machines in the US military arsenal used in all wars since Vietnam. Indian tribes used to vote to have this.

2. Code name Geronimo for Osama bin Laden with the President, VP and key cabinet members all sitting there\.

Even this issue has sides to it.

If all the "Indian" team names were removed, I expect there would be sentiment from some Native groups feeling regret, as some of these names do show pride, respect and honour, IMO. (Could be wrong. But then I never took offence to "Fighting Irish," despite my heritage.)

Words and implications can be flipped around.

Demanding. High standards.

Lazy. Relaxed.

Aggressive. Competitive.

Et cetera ...

And yet some names are clearly offensive.

If the Redskins name goes, there will be pressure for all the football and baseball and all pro and college and high school sports teams to follow suit. Fair enough. And some names will be borderline: Arrowhead Stadium? (Not sure if that is offensive.)

I think the Redskins name is going to be changed. Probably relatively soon. And too bad for Daniel Snyder. LOL Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy. But there will be large ripple effects, beyond what some envision. I guess public opinion is the arbiter of what is acceptable, and that is a bit scary, with the political correctness police increasing their sway.

Did I offend anybody here? As is true for everybody, I have been known to offend someone some time. If I did, it was unintentional and ignorant, and I do apologize.

[Toppy Vann]

WCJ: I amended my post AFTER you posted but what u have there is fine. I didn't see your post...lol. I posted an article on the military names and the Geronimo.

I think you are right. Redskins possibly will go as I was missing the fan behavior which I forgot about but now concede is wrong.

You are right I think on the regret if they deleted the Apache and other names like Tomahawk missiles. Apparently in one story I read the tribes voted to let the Army use their names - the very US army that abused them.

[WestCoastJoe]

WCJ: I amended my post AFTER you posted but what u have there is fine. I didn't see your post...lol. I posted an article on the military names and the Geronimo.

I think you are right. Redskins possibly will go as I was missing the fan behavior which I forgot about but now concede is wrong.

You are right I think on the regret if they deleted the Apache and other names like Tomahawk missiles. Apparently in one story I read the tribes voted to let the Army use their names - the very US army that abused them.

Something I could take offence to:

Survey by Stats Canada, or the Census people, I think, asking if you are a "visible minority"? Why, yes I am. My fair skin and blue eyes make me a minority (Maybe not in Scandinavia). LOL ... It is obvious that the writers of the survey are white, and are assuming that they are the majority.

Not sure if one can ask if one is a "visible minority." And I know many people have trouble answering: "What is your race?" Ummm ... Well I look white, but both of my parents are black. Many variations ...

What percentage are you? Ummmm ...

Humans will all be light tan at some far distant time, Gwynne Dyer once suggested in a column.

[South Pender]

Again, this from Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk:

De Smith says Washington team name conveys “racial insensitivity”
Posted by Mike Florio on May 30, 2014, 9:56 AM EDT

Last week, NFLPA president Eric Winston said the union didn’t plan to get in the middle of the dispute regarding the name of the Washington NFL franchise. Now, the NFLPA is sort of in the middle of it.

In a statement issued to the Washington Post in response to the letter sent by more than 75 Native American and civil rights groups to all players urging opposition to the Washington team name, NFLPA DeMaurice Smith explains that the name reflects “racial insensitivity.”

“I have conveyed my thoughts on this issue both to Roger and to the team,” Smith said. “They understand our position and I believe that those conversations are most effective when they can remain private. As I have stated publicly, though, I do not believe anyone should inflict pain, embarrass or insult, especially given the racial insensitivity of the term ‘Redskin.’ As you know, I grew up here and like all Washingtonians I became a fan of this team. The beauty of sports and of the Washington football franchise is that it will always have the ability to bring this community together, regardless of what decision is made about the team name.”

While the union officially tiptoes around the political hot potato, the NFL’s players are in position to do a cannonball into the deep end, if they choose to do so. The open call for all of them to publicly oppose the name coupled with Thursday’s hashtag debacle could (and arguably should) prompt players to speak their minds about the team’s name.

It will take some courage. In this age of free agency, it’s not wise to close one of the 32 available doorways to employment. But if doing the right thing were always easy, then everyone would always do the right thing, right?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this from the league:

League contends Washington name “not a slur”
Posted by Mike Florio on May 31, 2014, 9:25 AM EDT

Commissioner Roger Goodell has periodically tiptoed around the question of whether the Washington franchise owned by Daniel Snyder should change its name, never conceding there’s a serious problem with the name but never providing a definitive statement that the name is acceptable.

One of Goodell’s lieutenants provided something definitive on Friday.

“The team name is not a slur,” NFL V.P. of labor policy and government affairs Adolpho Birch said in a phone appearance on ESPN’s Outside the Lines.

“The team name is the team name as it has been for 80-plus years,” Birch said. “And what we need to do is get beyond sort of understanding this as a point-blank situation and understand it more as a variety of perspectives that all need to be addressed, that all need to be given some weight, so that at the end of it we can come to some understanding that is appropriate and reflects the opinions of all.”

That sounds good, but it’s impossible to reflect the opinions of those who think it’s a slur while also keeping the name. There’s no middle ground. Those who believe it’s a slur want it to change. Those who don’t believe it’s a slur want to keep it. And the ongoing controversy is causing the ranks of the undecideds to shrink.

“I think that is part of the issue with the question is that it is constantly being sort of put into a point-blank, yes-or-no, yes-or-no kind of context when that’s not the reality of the situation that we’re dealing with,” Birch said.

He’s right, but only because the NFL and the team have decided to ignore those who say “yes” to the slur question. In fairness, the league and the team aren’t completely ignoring those folks. The league and the team will listen. And understand. And respect the opinions and perspectives.

And then keep the name.

The issue will continue to be a “point-blank, yes-or-no, yes-or-no kind of context” until the league and the team say “yes” to a name change. Through the remarks Goodell has made over the past two years, the NFL necessarily has acknowledged that reasonable minds can differ on the question of whether the name is a slur. The question for the league is whether it’s comfortable having a team carry a name that has become the focal point of a reasonable dispute as to whether that name is a slur.

Birch’s comments suggest that the answer is yes, but that the league would be far more comfortable if everyone would please quit treating the “point-blank, yes-or-no” question of whether the name is a slur like the “point-blank, yes-or-no” question it inherently is.

And so the league will continue taking the position that it’s not an intentional slur and the team will continue to stubbornly try to convince people that it’s not an unintentional slur, either. And it all will continue until something breaks the logjam.

[South Pender]

Anti-Redskins commercial to air during NBA Finals
Posted by Michael David Smith on June 10, 2014, 9:00 AM EDT

Opponents of the name of the Washington Redskins will air their message before a large audience of sports fans tonight.

The Washington Post reports that the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, a tribe based in California, has paid for a 60-second anti-Redskins commercial to run during halftime of tonight’s NBA Finals game. The ad will run in Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Sacramento, San Francisco and Washington, and the tribe said it made a “significant investment” to purchase the air time.

The commercial begins with a long montage of names and labels that Native Americans call themselves, like “proud” and “forgotten,” “Navajo” and “Blackfoot,” “patriot” and “soldier,” “Jim Thorpe” and “Billy Mills.” It ends with the narrator saying, “Native Americans call themselves many things. The one thing they don’t” and then an image of a Redskins helmet.

A longer version of the ad was posted on YouTube just before the Super Bowl and has been viewed nearly 2 million times.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daniel Snyder hires lobbyist to defend team name
Posted by Mike Florio on June 9, 2014, 7:11 PM EDT

With 50 Senators recently urging the NFL to force the franchise owned by Daniel Snyder to change its name, Snyder realizes that he needs someone to use someone other than president and G.M. Bruce Allen and/or Twitter to deliver the team’s message to Senators, Congresspeople, and other interested politicians.

As first reported by Politico, the team has hired the law firm of McGuireWoods to lobby on its behalf. Former Virginia governor George Allen, Bruce’s brother, previously worked for that firm.

The official disclosure form indicates that the firm has been hired to conduct “discussions of team origins, history and traditions, Washington Redskins Charitable Foundation and youth sports, activities of Original Americans’ Foundation.”

In other words, the firm has been to take some steam out of the effort among politicians to change the team name — even though the team has acted like any and all political pressure to change its name has had no impact on the team’s steadfast refusal to consider a name change.

Bottom line? The letter signed by 50 Senators found the nerve in third molar with Snyder and company, who are now setting up yet another front in the ever-growing battle to keep the name in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Champ Bailey: Dan Snyder should change the Redskins’ name
Posted by Michael David Smith on June 11, 2014, 12:32 PM EDT

One of the best players to put on a Washington Redskins uniform in the time that Dan Snyder has owned the franchise is calling on Snyder to change the team’s controversial name.

Champ Bailey, a four-time Pro Bowler for the Redskins before he was traded to the Broncos in 2004, told USA Today that it’s time to listen to Native Americans who say the term “Redskins” offends them.

“When you hear a Native American say that ‘Redskins’ is degrading, it’s almost like the N-word for a black person,” Bailey said. “If they feel that way, then it’s not right. They are part of this country. It’s degrading to a certain race. Does it make sense to have the name?”

Bailey said Snyder needs to put stubbornness aside and do the right thing.

“I get it, he doesn’t want to change it,” Bailey said of Snyder. “But he’s making it worse than it should be.”

Snyder has said he will never change his team’s name. It’s becoming increasingly clear that if Snyder maintains that position, this issue will never go away.

[TheLionKing]

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Patent Office ruled Wednesday that the Washington Redskins nickname is "disparaging of Native Americans" and that the team's federal trademarks for the name must be cancelled.

The 2-1 ruling comes after a campaign to change the name has gained momentum over the past year. The team doesn't immediately lose trademark protection and is allowed to retain it during an appeal.

Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has refused to change the team's name, citing tradition, but there has been growing pressure including statements in recent months from President Barack Obama, lawmakers of both parties and civil rights groups.

The decision means that the team can continue to use the Redskins name, but it would lose a significant portion of its ability to protect the financial interests connected to its use. If others printed the name on sweatshirts, apparel, or other team material, it becomes more difficult to go after groups who use it without permission.

The decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is similar to one it issued in 1999. That ruling was overturned in 2003 in large part on a technicality after the courts decided that the plaintiffs were too old and should have filed their complaint soon after the Redskins registered their nickname in 1967.

The new case was launched in 2006 by a younger group of Native Americans, and was heard by the board in March of last year.

The group argued that the Redskins should lose their federal trademark protection based on a law that prohibits registered names that are disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable. The case involves six registered trademarks that involve the use of the word Redskins, but it does not apply to the team's logo.

Suzan Shown Harjo, one of the plaintiffs who testified at last year's hearing, said she was "thrilled and delighted" with the decision. The Redskins did not immediately comment.

http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/story/?id=455105

[WestCoastJoe]

Pressure is building on Snyder. He will hold out until he suffers major damage. He is already a pariah, but then he is used to that.

[South Pender]

Suzan Shown Harjo, one of the plaintiffs who testified at last year's hearing, said she was "thrilled and delighted" with the decision. The Redskins did not immediately comment.

Actually, they did.

As expected, Redskins will appeal trademark ruling
Posted by Darin Gantt on June 18, 2014, 12:19 PM EDT

As you might imagine for a team that has taken the “ALL CAPS/over my dead body” approach to an increasingly unpopular nickname, the Redskins confirmed that they will appeal today’s trademark ruling.

“We’ve seen this story before. 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,” said Bob Raskopf, trademark attorney for the Redskins, in a statement issued by the team. “We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal. This case is no different than an earlier case, where the Board cancelled the Redskins’ trademark registrations, and where a federal district court disagreed and reversed the Board.”

Florio referenced that 1999 ruling earlier today, and noted the inevitable change in the social and political climate about the name.

The Redskins statement expressed nothing but the same kind of confidence owner Dan Snyder has become known for on this issue, the same kind that makes General Manager Bruce Allen say things like “We’re fine.”

They might be from a legal sense, for the moment, but the pressure on them continues to grow with every passing day.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

One more nail in the coffin, I think, but it will take a while yet....

[WestCoastJoe]

http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/story/?id=455147

CANCELLATION OF REDSKINS TRADEMARK

ERIC MACRAMALLA, TSN LEGAL ANALYST

6/18/2014 4:02:30 PM

The United States Patent and Trademarks Office (USPTO) has today ordered that six Redskins trademark registrations be cancelled on the basis that they are "disparaging to Native Americans".

Five Native Americans initiated the cancellation proceeding pursuant to the U.S. Trademarks Act, which "prohibits registration of marks that may disparage persons or bring them into contempt or disrepute."

There has been some talk that the registrations have been cancelled, that the Redskins have lost all their trademark protection and that anyone can now go out and start selling Redskins merchandise without the permission of the team.

All that is wrong.

The trademark registrations have not been cancelled as of yet. The ruling was to cancel the registrations, but they remain in good standing, and will for some time. Challenging the decision will buy the Redskins time. The team will appeal the decision, and in the meantime, the trademark registrations will remain active. The Redskins can appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. They may also start a court action in District Court for the District of Columbia. They may also request reconsideration of the decision with the USPTO.

Expect the Redskins to take its case to District Court since that will give them the opportunity to introduce new evidence. At the Court of Appeals level, they can't submit new evidence; rather the court is stuck with the record from the original hearing.

On to the big issue: does the cancellation mean that the Redskins lose their trademark rights?

The ruling to cancel the trademark registrations does NOT strip the team of its trademark rights or its ability to stop unauthorized parties from using the Redskins marks.

The Redskins have acquired what are called common law trademark rights. These are trademark rights that arise by virtue of the use of the mark in the marketplace. By "use", I mean things like jersey sales and the mark appearing in TV broadcasts and online.

And here's the key: common law trademark rights are enforceable and the Redskins could rely on them to stop a third party from making unauthorized use of its marks.

This means that the team does not need a trademark registration to stop someone from making unauthorized use of its marks. Common law rights can be relied upon to do just that. While there are important differences between registered and common law trademarks as far as scope of protection, the fame of the Redskins mark together with national sales and use place the Redskins in a good position to stop others from using their marks.

So if some guy in Wisconsin starts selling product with the Redskins trademark on it without the permission of the team, he should expect to receive a cease and desist letter from the team, and failing his agreement to stop, he could face a lawsuit.

Apart from trademarks, the Redskins could also sue for copyright infringement if someone makes unauthorized use of their logo or stylized word mark. The decision of the USPTO relates only to trademarks and has nothing to do with copyright.

While the potential cancellation is not fatal to the ability of the Redskins to enforce their rights, this is yet another blow to the Redskins team name. The pressure on the team and league to change its name continues to mount with no end in sight. Indeed, the question may not be if the team changes its name, but when.

One result of the ruling will be motivation for those opposed to the name. Momentum will build against Snyder. He might end up in the range of Donald Sterling as most reviled owner in pro sports. I suppose it is not surprising that neither owner has built winning teams. Just a plaything. Just a toy. Snyder likes to think he has a relationship with various players. Ummm ... no. Sterling seems more interested in hanging out at games, in the media spotlight, a Hollywood star.

[South Pender]

Here's Mike Florio's take:

Washington name controversy keeps picking up steam
Posted by Mike Florio on June 19, 2014, 9:45 AM EDT

A day after the out-of-the-blue ruling that the name of the Washington NFL team no longer enjoys the protection of federal trademark law, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell should look in the mirror and execute his best Lorne Malvo impersonation.

Is this what you want?

Goodell needs to keep asking himself that question. Continuously and repeatedly until Goodell finds a way to persuade, cajole, and/or force owner Daniel Snyder to give up the name.

It had seemed that Goodell hoped to wait for a lull in the debate to find a way out of the maze, creating the impression that the league and the team are making the change because they want to, not because the NFL has yielded to any official or unofficial external uthority.

In that sense, The Shield really is a shield. The powers-that-be are hiding behind a warped sense of tradition and old-fashioned hard-headedness in refusing to do now what the trend clearly suggests inevitably will happen. The facts are irrelevant; the position flows from the belief that the NFL is too big to be told what to do by anyone who doesn’t own a team or occupy a prominent corner office at 345 Park Avenue.

A change inevitable will happen, because regardless of where anyone and everyone stands on the issue, the debate will continue. Through the same passage of time that transformed the term to unacceptable, more and more people will become uncomfortable with the word. Eventually, supporters who don’t feel strongly about the name will become weary of the controversy.

Until then, Goodell needs to keep coming back to Malvo’s mantra.

Is this what you want?

Does the NFL want ongoing major mainstream media coverage of the controversy? Does it want A1 placement in the Washington papers of the issue? Does it want countless radio shows and interviews throughout the country to feature ongoing discussion of this issue in lieu of commentary about, you know, football?

Does Goodell want his long-term legacy to be that he lacked the foresight or the ability to do what history will scream should have been done?

More and more publications decline to use the term. The Seattle Times has abandoned the word in an editorial posted last night. Others have simply stopped using it without commentary or fanfare — despite the taunts and insults and not-so-subtle threats from those who strongly oppose a name change.

On that point, one of the primary arguments the supporters of the name advance flows from the perception that concerns about the name have arisen only recently. Where was the outrage, they’ll ask, over the last 70 years?

As noted on Wednesday by Dan Steinberg of the Washington Post, the issue has lingered for more than 40 years. Should the media and the politicians have concluded far sooner that the name needs to go? Absolutely. Does ignoring the matter in the past compel that it continue to be ignored? Absolutely not.

Regardless of whether Wednesday’s ruling survives an appeal, the decision from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office represents validation of an effort that has gotten far more organized, far better funded, and far more motivated in the last year — thanks in large part to the team’s misguided decision to engage the issue. And so the debate will continue, indefinitely.

Through it all, Goodell needs to keep asking himself the key question.

Is this what you want?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there's this, again by Mike Florio:

Miami (Ohio) chimes in on Washington name issue
Posted by Mike Florio on June 19, 2014, 1:50 PM EDT

Often overlooked in the ongoing debate regarding the name of the Washington NFL team is that plenty of other programs at lower levels of football and other sports have changed names containing terms relating to Native Americans.

Miami University of Ohio once had the same name. In 1997, after the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma withdrew its support for the name, the school changed it to RedHawks.

On Tuesday, after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the trademark protection associated with the name, the RedHawks sent a message.

“Hey @Redskins, if you need help finding a new name just let us know,” the school said via the Miami Athletics Twitter account.

While RedHawks likely wouldn’t be used by the Washington NFL team, the point is that changing the name of a team isn’t nearly as traumatic as some make it out to be. Done the right way, it can be a positive.

And then, after it’s done, the team can twist the tail of any other sports programs that fail to realize or accept the need for change.
____________________________________________________________________

Many many college, high-school, and other junior football teams have abandoned the Redskins team name over the past couple of decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And today there's this, again by Florio:

Politicians commence process of pressuring other owners on Washington name
Posted by Mike Florio on June 19, 2014, 4:56 PM EDT

To date, the political aspect of the challenge to the name of the Washington NFL franchise has focused on applying pressure to owner Daniel Snyder specifically and the rest of the NFL generally.

Now, an effort apparently has begun to pressure individual owners not named Daniel Snyder.

Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) has sent a letter to Vikings owner Zygi Wilf urging him “to not remain silent on this matter any longer.”

“NFL franchises split the sales of their licensed merchandise equally,” McCollum writes. “As you well know, when a shirt, cap, or jersey bearing the Washington team name is sold, the Minnesota Vikings share in the profit from that sale. After yesterday’s decision, NFL owners must now ask themselves if they want to continue to profit from a name so hurtful to our Native American brothers and sisters that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office deemed it ineligible for federal protection. By taking a stand to change the mascot, you can send a very clear message to Native Americans and all Americans that your organization no longer wishes to benefit from the commercialization of that hateful slur.”

Assuming that McCollum’s contention regarding shared merchandising revenue is accurate (we’ll ask the league whether it is), she has a decent point. If all owners profit from the use of the name, all owners are complicit in its ongoing use in the face of mounting public, political, and legal opposition.

Other owners primarily if not exclusively have remained silent on the issue, neither expressing support or condemnation. On the former, their silence is arguably deafening. Still, the needle won’t move until one or more of them choose to speak out.

The chances of that happening are roughly equivalent to the chances of Snyder changing the name without the NFL and other owners privately nudging him to do so.

[South Pender]

I ran across this in a list of off-season disappointments, one for each NFL team by Alessandro Miglio, of Bleacher Report:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2102 ... on/page/33

He places Dan Snyder's obstinance regarding the team name as Washington's biggest off-season disappointment. However, what I found most interesting was the poll noted in that article. You can click on the link and see the results of the poll. In it, 67% of American Indians (that's what they call themselves in the US, something that would itself probably be seen as racist in Canada) regard the Redskins name as racist. The poll is described as "recent," although I couldn't find a date on it, but it was conducted by a respectable organization. If the findings are truly representative of the native American population of the US, then this would seem to point to strong reasons for changing the team name. Offending the majority of a racial minority seems pretty significant to me.

Oh, by the way, biggest disappointment for Seahawks' fans (in this writer's opinion)? Loss of Golden Tate. I don't know about that. It isn't my biggest disappointment anyway. Given recent acquisitions, I think the 'Hawks are probably stronger at WR now than they were at this time last season. I guess my biggest disappointment re the 'Hawks would be the loss of Red Bryant, or maybe, Chris Clemons. However, again, Schneider/Carroll seem to have come up with what look like good replacements.