This is great. It should have happened years ago. The trademark protection for this mascot should be yanked. If a new team used a caricature of an African American or someone in black face as their mascot, people would see it as obviously offensive. However, because Cleveland fans have had the racist mascot since the 50s, somehow that makes it OK. Its always been offensive. Theres no statute of limitations on disparaging another race. The other argument against it is that I dont see it as offensive, so they shouldnt. This comment is inevitably made by a young, white, male who has lived a completely insular life. Guess what? Its not about whether you are offended by it. Its whether the target of the derision finds it offensive. Another argument is that Ive not heard any Indians complain, so it must just be whiney liberals who are behind this. All of the lawsuits have been brought by Native American organizations, so if this is your argument, you are completely misinformed. The final whine is the slippery slope argument. If we cant disparage the Native Americans through calling them Redskins or having a racist mascot, where will it end? Will they sue to have the Fighting Irish name changed or the Browns change their name? Will short people sue the Giants for making them feel inferior? First, the trademark laws prohibit the use of racial slurs or trademarks that disparage a race. Short people arent a protected category, so they dont have any standing. Second, the Browns are named after a man, not after brown people. Third, the Irish call themselves Irish. Its not a slur to call someone Irish. The Notre Dame mascot is a leprechaun, not an Irish person. Maybe the leprechauns will file a suit against Notre Dame to have their mascot removed, but that wouldnt exactly be the lead if a group leprechauns filed a lawsuit. #chiefwahoo
Posted on: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:29:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015