But too many folks are griping about the USPTO's decision, claiming that this identifying term of "Redskins" has no malcontent. Why aren't they complaining about the other teams that use Native Americans as mascots and logos, they ask.
The gripers are wrong, though. Native Americans haven't complained about the Kansas City Chiefs, the Cleveland Indians, or the Atlanta Braves, that's true - but that's because there's no negative connotation in those words. The term "Redskin," however, is a derogatory slur; it's the equivalent of calling African Americans "tar babies" or "darkies."
And if the gripers still can't understand, then maybe they should consider alternate terms for other team mascots.
The NFL's Steelers, for example, are named for the many who worked in that trade in Pittsburgh. But what if we used a derogatory term for those workers?
But if you still can't understand the basis for objection to the use of "Redskins" as a professional team's mascot, then maybe you should just hunker down with your kraut/greasy wop/kike/spic/chink friends and form your own football league. Until then? Quit your griping about today's decision to remove trademark protection from the term used by Washington, D.C.'s term.