Skip to comments.Redskin, Blackskin: Pigment is destiny
Posted on 06/20/2014 5:54:28 AM PDT by nathanbedford
Redskin, Blackskin: Pigment is destiny
A Councilman in the city of Washington DC utters the word "niggardly" quite correctly and without any racial connotations whatsoever rather it its proper meaning of "stingy." Black members of the Council, ignorant of the dictionary meaning of the word, take offense and demand the offender's resignation for outrageously using a racial epithet. The Councilman is forced off the board. It did not matter that his heart was pure and his tongue was free of racism, only the subjective reaction of a racial component of the city Council of Washington DC mattered.
In this episode we see cultural relativism triumph over an innocent individual. The moral innocence of the Councilman is irrelevant; the only determining factor was the subjective reaction of a favored class defined by race.
In the ruling of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Depriving the Washington Redskins Football Team of the enjoyment of their trademark logo, we see the same cultural relativism played out and we can demonstrate that in their own words:
First, what is the law and what does the law require be adjudicated? The opinion says:
33 Section 2(a) prohibits registration of a mark which may disparage persons or bring them into contempt, or disrepute. As held in the prior order of May 31, 2011, for purposes of this proceeding the guidelines for determining whether the mark is disparaging are equally applicable to determining whether such matter brings persons or institutions into contempt or disrepute. TTABVue 40, p. 4. We, therefore, use the word disparage in this case as an umbrella term for may disparage or bring them into contempt or disrepute.
It is obvious and it does not require a conservative to acknowledge that this is a restriction of free speech and a potential expropriation or "taking" of property without compensation. For the requirement cited above is is only necessary to show that "persons" might be brought into "contempt" or "disrepute" or will be "disparaged." worse, it is not necessary to show that disparagement actually occurs by this language only that it "may" occur.
How this language could have passed constitutional muster is beyond me. First, as noted, there is the obvious First Amendment problem. Second, there is the matter of due process and vagueness. That which "may disparage", or "may bring into disrepute" leaves the door open to wild speculation. There is virtually no human logo or speech which cannot somehow brings someone into disrepute. But it gets worse. A trademark which "may bring someone into disrepute" means that others will react to the trademark and generate disrepute for the alleged victim. There is no requirement that others behave rationally, they can behave quite irrationally, like the Councilman in Washington DC, but once disrepute is conceived of, game over.
It gets worse and worse. Cultural relativism despises the idea of universal truths and the idea that the law seeks truth and justice. It despises those notions and it does not intend, when cultural relativist have ultimate power as they do in this case, to be fettered by these notions. So they do away with every objective standard and substitute subjectivity throughout this entire proceeding to pave the way to obtain the results they want. In their own words:
In deciding the second question, whether the term redskins may disparage Native Americans, we look not to the American public as a whole, but to the views of the referenced group (i.e., Native Americans). Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 68 USPQ2d at 1247; Harjo v. Pro- Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d at 1739.15
Here we see the institutionalization of what we saw in the city Council of Washington DC. The question is not what is objective truth about whether these "persons" have actually been disparaged but whether they themselves feel that they have been disparaged.
But the cultural relativist have not finished blowing up objectivity. It is not the group of persons, in this case Native Americans, as a whole which must subjectively feel they are disparaged but only some of them:
The views of the referenced group are reasonably determined by the views of a substantial composite thereof. Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 68 USPQ2d at 1247 (quoting Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d at 1739).
A substantial composite of the referenced group is not necessarily a majority of the referenced group. In re Heeb Media LLC, 89 USPQ2d 1071, 1074 (TTAB 2008); In re Squaw Valley Dev. Co., 80 USPQ2d 1264, 1279 n.12; cf. Ritchie v. Simpson, 179 F.3d 1091, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1024 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
What is a "substantial composite?" The opinion holds that 30% is enough:
we find this showing of thirty percent to be more than substantial.
Respondent has introduced evidence that some in the Native American community do not find the term Redskin disparaging when it is used in connection with professional football. While this may reveal differing opinions within the community, it does not negate the opinions of those who find it disparaging. The ultimate decision is based on whether the evidence shows that a substantial composite of the Native American population found the term Redskins to be disparaging when the respective registrations issued. Heeb Media LLC, 89 USPQ2d at 1077. Therefore, once a substantial composite has been found, the mere existence of differing opinions cannot change the conclusion.
So subjectivity conquers all. There is no objective standard, there is no standard of the whole of the community, there is no standard of the class of alleged victims, there is only the subjective reaction of less than a third of the class of imputed victims which counts and which sets to naught the beliefs of the majority of that minority.
There is no limit to doing good when a leftist is doing good and no impediment to doing good shall be admitted. Just as we saw in the city Council of Washington DC, the good intentions of the respondent are irrelevant:
In other words, respondents alleged honorable intent and manner of use of the term do not contribute to the determination of whether a substantial composite of the referenced group found REDSKINS to be a disparaging term ....
These adjudicators set the rules, define the crime, control the procedure, and define what is admissible and what is not:
We only focus on the evidence that most directly reflects the sentiments of Native Americans. In particular, concerning the general analysis of the word, we focus on the testimony and reports provided by the parties respective experts, dictionary definitions and reference books. For the specific views of Native Americans, we focus on the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) 1993 Resolution 93- 11, the deposition of NCAI Executive Director, Ms. JoAnn Chase, the deposition of Harold Martin Gross, and various newspaper articles, reports, official records and letters.
The dissenting opinion set out to contest the factual findings but of course the majority would simply have changed the rules and moved the goalposts as necessary to get to its preconceived result.
What happened in Washington DC and what happened in the Washington Patent Office are not isolated examples of runaway political correctness, they are warnings to every liberty loving patriot that your freedom is being defined away but at least you get a written opinion with nice footnotes from The Patent Office.
Warriors, Braves, Redskins, Seminoles, Mississippi, Indiana, The Fighting Irish. So many names to be expunged, so little time..
It is a perfectly good English word and deserves to be spelled correctly. Etymologically speaking, it has absolutely no racial connotation.
"mean person, miser," late 14c., nygart, of uncertain origin. The suffix suggests French origin (see -ard), but the root word is possibly from earlier nig "stingy" (c.1300), perhaps from a Scandinavian source related to Old Norse hnøggr "stingy," from Proto-Germanic *khnauwjaz (source of Swedish njugg "close, careful," German genau "precise, exact"), and to Old English hneaw "stingy, niggardly," which did not survive in Middle English.
I see that you missed the CLEVELAND BROWNS.
A few years ago I was on Jury duty at the court house in Atlanta. The case involved a murder where the defendant was claiming the gun went off “accidentally” during an “argument”. So during jury selection the attorney was asking potential jurors a lot of questions about guns in hopes of weeding out people who disliked or were afraid of guns.
Being asked about personal use of guns I mentioned my shooting of Black-Powder Guns in competition. I realized after I said it that I probably should have said “muzzle-loader” guns instead, but we were so used to calling them “black powder”.
So later that day when we were all sitting and waiting for the attorneys to come back in and announce who would remain as jurors, I was getting dirty looks and outright shunning by the blacks in the jury pool, which I could not understand as I am normally a friendly gregarious person and not concerned with skin color at all. Then one of them said with a very angry and loud voice.... “What’s this stuff about black-powder, just what the ____ is that supposed to mean?”
After I explained that it’s the kind of powder poured into an old fashioned muzzle-loader gun, we all had a big laugh over it and everything was okay from then on. It pointed out to me just how easy and vehemently racists can jump to the wrong conclusion over a word they do not understand.
They were both non-elected officials who worked for then Mayor Anthony Williams.
What about the Miami Dolphins?
Has anyone asked any actual dolphins whether they feel “disparaged” by the usurpation of their name and likeness?
Ouch! ..and the Fighting Illini (Illinois)..
The New England region in general, and Massachusetts specifically, are longer welcoming havens for patriotic Americans to live and work. Therefore, the use of the name 'Patriot' and its associated images disparages real Patriots and may "bring them in to contempt or disrepute".
I am far more offended by the FIRST part of their name than by the second.
Well, Miami refers to a transplanted Indian tribe from the Midwest. I guess the whole name and city are repugnant..
Snyder should change the name to the “Washington Foreskins”....
The homo nazi’s will be overjoyed and since foreskins are one of the most popular items in DC, the name will fit nicely....
University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux
I am nominating that as the reply-of-the-day.
When you say the Choctaw Indian name for the Sooner State, you are no more racist than someone saying the Washington Redskins. Oklahoma is based on Choctaw Indian words which translate as red people (okla meaning "people" and humma meaning "red"). Choctaw Chief Allen Wright suggested the name in 1866