For a discussion not only of the recent “Redskins” trademark decision, along with comments about several university marks that may be in trouble, as well as the marks of a “civil rights” organization or two you may have heard of, see my piece today on Minding The Campus, “Is ‘Tolerance’ The New ‘Diversity’?”
For other sports names that the logic of the Post and the trademark trial board should put at risk, see this excellent article on Forbes.
Roger Clegg sends the following comment:
I especially liked your NAACP/UNCF point about language shifts. I have right here in my hands a 1969 Webster’s dictionary, that defines “redskin” as simply, “n: a No. American Indian”; nothing about it being offensive or slang or vulgar or whatever. And 1969 was not so long ago; I’m pretty sure I was even alive then, although of course much less enlightened.
I replied that I’d like to quote him, “if you’re brave enough (not to be confused with “2. Brave: n. dated, an American Indian warrior” from my MacBook’s built in dictionary) to own up to it. Wait a minute! Shouldn’t some posse tell Apple, or the Oxford American Dictionary people, that “American Indian” is ALSO dated’?”
He was brave enough.