Two years after Obama revokes trademark protection for Washington Redskins, 90% of Native Americans say they are not offended by the term
In June 2014, the Obama administration revoked trademark protection for the Washington Redskins’ name because some people thought it was offensive.
This sets a horrible precedent.
Just about every R-rated movie includes content that someone would consider offensive, whether that content be violence, sex, profanity, etc. The same can be said for the content of many books, the lyrics of many songs, the content of many paintings, etc. If any copyright, patent, trademark, etc., can be revoked because someone finds it offensive, then I can’t even begin to imagine how much damage this would cause to the concept of intellectual property, as well as to the arts, sciences, music, literature, movies, etc.
There is no such thing as a right to not be offended. The whole point of protecting free speech in the first place is to protect speech that some people might find offensive. If we only protected speech that was dull, bland, and non-controversial, there wouldn’t be much point to having such protection in the first place.
And now, two years later, we get a new reason for why Obama was not justified to do what he did: a poll by the Washington Post shows that 90% of Native Americans are not offended by the Washington Redskins name.
Way to go Daryl!
From an interview with Daryl Hall from Salon:
Daryl Hall has a message for critics crying cultural appropriation: “Shut the f*ck up”
May 12, 2016
Salon: One of the current debates is over “cultural appropriation” – The idea that white people should not appropriate the culture of ethnic and racial minorities. I know that you don’t like the term “blue eyed soul.” Have you followed this conversation?
Daryl: Are you trying to say that I don’t own the style of music that I grew up with and sing? I grew up with this music. It is not about being black or white. That is the most naïve attitude I’ve ever heard in my life. That is so far in the past, I hope, for everyone’s sake. It isn’t even an issue to discuss. The music that you listened to when you grew up is your music. It has nothing to do with “cultural appropriation.”
Salon: I agree with you entirely, because…
Daryl: I’m glad that you do, because anyone who says that should shut the fuck up.
Salon: Well, this entire critique is coming back…
Daryl: I’m sorry to hear it. Who is making these critiques? Who do they write for? What are their credentials to give an opinion like that? Who are they?
Salon: Much of it is academic.
Daryl: Well, then they should go back to school. Academia? Now, there’s a hotbed of idiocy.
Salon: Anyone who knows about music, about culture in general, understands that everything is much more natural. Everything is a mixture.
Daryl: We live in America. That’s our entire culture. Our culture is a blend. It isn’t split up into groups. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool – worse than a fool – a dangerous fool.
Salon: I also know that you don’t like the term “blue eyed soul”…
Daryl: No, and it is for this very reason. There is no color to soul. Soul music comes from the heart. It was generated out of the church, and it became secular gospel.
Salon: Ray Charles made that same point. He said the only difference between gospel and soul is that in one genre he sings to God, and in another, he sings to a woman.
Daryl: That’s right. That’s exactly it.
This is from yesterday at San Francisco State University.
A black female employee grabs a white male student, tries to stop him from walking, and criticizes him for wearing dreadlocks. Then she falsely accuses him of grabbing her (even though it was the other way around), and asks why everything is being filmed.