Why not? Ever hear of NWA?
2
"Whats in a name?" - Rodney Dangerfield.
“I thought that was interesting,” Tam told me, “because No 1., it’s not true. But No. 2, we can talk about our slant on life on what it’s like to be people of color.”
Curious how the period in "No 1." is differently situated from that in "No 2."
Curious how the period in "No 1." is differently situated from that in "No 2."
3
Here are a few hypotheticals of what would happen if the Supreme Court sides with Simon Tam and declares the "disparagement" clause invalid/unconstitutional:
There are two businesses located in Deep South:
1) A group of white men starts a business selling firearms and puts up a large billboard on the roof advertising itself with the name, "Welfare Queen N*ggaz" and the name is surrounded by pictures of large, muscular black males wearing queen crowns shooting AK-47s and Uzis. The gun shop registers for the trademarks for the name as well as the pictures. The trademarks are granted because there is no longer a "disparagement" clause.
The gun shop then franchises all over the nation and starts making more money from the trademarked name. It even sells T-Shirts, mugs, calendars, etc.
2) Paula Deen starts a Mexican-themed restaurant called "Wetback Central". It also has a large billboard on the roof with its name in large font, surrounded by pictures of grinning Hispanic males in sombreros. The restaurant registers for the trademark for the name. The trademark is granted because there is no longer a "disparagement" clause.
Paula Deen franchises "Wetback Central" all over the US and starts making more money from the trademarked name. She even sells T-Shirts, mugs, calendars, etc.
In BOTH of the hypotheticals above, the owners of the restaurant are PROFITING from the name and no one else can reclaim the names because the names are trademarked.
There are two businesses located in Deep South:
1) A group of white men starts a business selling firearms and puts up a large billboard on the roof advertising itself with the name, "Welfare Queen N*ggaz" and the name is surrounded by pictures of large, muscular black males wearing queen crowns shooting AK-47s and Uzis. The gun shop registers for the trademarks for the name as well as the pictures. The trademarks are granted because there is no longer a "disparagement" clause.
The gun shop then franchises all over the nation and starts making more money from the trademarked name. It even sells T-Shirts, mugs, calendars, etc.
2) Paula Deen starts a Mexican-themed restaurant called "Wetback Central". It also has a large billboard on the roof with its name in large font, surrounded by pictures of grinning Hispanic males in sombreros. The restaurant registers for the trademark for the name. The trademark is granted because there is no longer a "disparagement" clause.
Paula Deen franchises "Wetback Central" all over the US and starts making more money from the trademarked name. She even sells T-Shirts, mugs, calendars, etc.
In BOTH of the hypotheticals above, the owners of the restaurant are PROFITING from the name and no one else can reclaim the names because the names are trademarked.
1
Sir, you missed the point. In both cases, NWA and Slants, were coined by those individuals who are of that racial group, in contraast to your example. Per your example, this would not be one of so-called equal protection under the law. Afterall a policeman or soldier may use a gun but we as private citizens may not act in a similar fashion to a policeman or soldier.
I see this sort of like how "hate speech" and "racism" have recently come into vogue with rather scary definitions. From the progressive perspective, the definition is when a member of the "majority" group says or does something to one of the "special" minority groups (no slants allowed). The exact same conduct, committed by a minority towards a majority, is increasingly said to be impossible of being labeled as racist or hate speech, as the minority group has no "institutional power". This despite the fact that if I call my next door neighbor a slur, I don't represent all of my race (it generalized individuals into groups).
It must be impermissible. Leaving the interpretation up to examiners reading random blogs or tweets leaves decisions open to manipulation and/or subject to the examiner only hearing the voices of the loudest.
It must be impermissible. Leaving the interpretation up to examiners reading random blogs or tweets leaves decisions open to manipulation and/or subject to the examiner only hearing the voices of the loudest.
1
That's the thing about free speech and the Constitution, ideally it protects us all evenly . Not just the things we like and approve of, but the ones that anger and offend us also. If you want free speech for yourself, you have to be willing to put up with it from others. Which is almost never easy to do. The way to fight offensive speech is with more speech, not hypocritical prohibitions. I say this as a gay man from an adopted family with two little sisters of different ethnicities who grew up in Alabama in the '70's. We heard things that would curl your toes on an hourly basis. Fighting back with words was usually the only option because (to borrow from a favorite author) we were "always outnumbered and always outgunned".
5
Of course the band should be able to call themselves The Slopes; it's clever and reappropriative. Why all this mishegoss by misguided majority whites telling a minority band what to call itself? And what next? Are they going to come after NWA, Cracker, and the Yellow Monkeys for their subversive names? Sheesh. (P.S. Go read Flannery O'Connor's great short story "Good Country People"--it's about people who are "well-intentioned but wrong.")
3
The words "Quaker" and "Shaker" were originally insults. They are not the actual names of the denominations in question. Pejoratives have probably been reclaimed for as long as there have been pejoratives.
3
i always thought the slants was a pretty cool name for the band. i think i heard about this case a few years back but i never thought of it since. fascinating article. sure am curious where all that patent money ends up. probably keeps the lights on at least. what a scam for the government to think they can regulate thought. heck if left to their own devices the next thing you know they might think they get to regulate where we live or work. silly feds.
1
The problem with the Redskins is not their name, it's their logo. If they changed it to a potato of the redskin variety that would be the end of the issue.
9
Remember NWA? That was not a problem and the slur was worse.
BTW how come it is OK when black people bandy about the "n"-word?
BTW how come it is OK when black people bandy about the "n"-word?
7
because it is
1
Politically correct absurdity
So I suppose they must renamed themselves the Askews?
So I suppose they must renamed themselves the Askews?
7
What about the band NWA?
4
Really well-written article by Ms. Jeong. It makes me ask the question, who does the Patent Office feel they are protecting and how much taxpayer money have they spent doing it?
Best of luck to Mr. Tam and his band mates!
Best of luck to Mr. Tam and his band mates!
7
given that NWA received and maintains a trademark for their name "N*ggaz Wit Attitudes," i see no reason why "The Slants" should not get one.
7
that z' makes all the difference, dontcha know.
An interesting debate on both sides. How does this differ from the long assortment of "ganster rap" terms used so freely in album names and groups. Terms that traditionally are considered okay from certain ethnic groups, but certainly not from a middle class white man. At the same time this asian group says, "‘Well, do they know we’re of Asian descent?’" ... and what if they weren't and pushed names and songs of that nature? It seems worse that we have double standards on freedom of use around these terms.
4
"Tilted Broz as an alternative
Isn't there president here with NWA?
When I was growing up, "queer" was a fighting word. Today it remains (with "faggot") the deepest homophobic slur available to unreconstructed homophobes.
And yet gay and lesbian people--especially youth, which has grown up during a time when the self-identifications "gay" and "lesbian", and the people those terms represent, have gained some degree of acceptance-- even assimilation-- into American society-- are making this huge, uh, grievous, public relations error by insisting on identifying themselves with some sort of emotion that is at least related to pride as this most scurrilous slang word.
Faced with that, as, first, a touring musician, and second as a lifelong member of the LGBT community, I must fully support the effort by Mr. Tam to have whatever name he and his band want. "Slant" is not an institutionalized slur. If somebody says the word "slant," all sorts of associations immediately come to mind. But if one says the word "queer" in the US, nobody thinks of the original English meaning, i.e., strange. They think of homosexuals, with all sorts of the most scurrilous associations.
For gay and lesbian people to call themselves "queer" is the same thing as if Mr. Tam and his band were to call themselves "The Gooks" (I'm speculating that Mr. Tam is Vietnamese-American) or "The Chinks".
And yet gay and lesbian people--especially youth, which has grown up during a time when the self-identifications "gay" and "lesbian", and the people those terms represent, have gained some degree of acceptance-- even assimilation-- into American society-- are making this huge, uh, grievous, public relations error by insisting on identifying themselves with some sort of emotion that is at least related to pride as this most scurrilous slang word.
Faced with that, as, first, a touring musician, and second as a lifelong member of the LGBT community, I must fully support the effort by Mr. Tam to have whatever name he and his band want. "Slant" is not an institutionalized slur. If somebody says the word "slant," all sorts of associations immediately come to mind. But if one says the word "queer" in the US, nobody thinks of the original English meaning, i.e., strange. They think of homosexuals, with all sorts of the most scurrilous associations.
For gay and lesbian people to call themselves "queer" is the same thing as if Mr. Tam and his band were to call themselves "The Gooks" (I'm speculating that Mr. Tam is Vietnamese-American) or "The Chinks".
3
From yesterday's NYT story on the end of the Hawaiian sugar business (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/opinion/the-sun-finally-sets-on-sugar...
"A comedian telling jokes about portagees, pakes and buddhaheads could leave an audience convulsed without rancor, since none of his targets had ever oppressed any of the others, every family had roots in immigrant labor, and they were all related anyway."
This pretty well summarizes, IMHO, the difference between the usage and intent of "Slants" and "Redskins" as group names...
"A comedian telling jokes about portagees, pakes and buddhaheads could leave an audience convulsed without rancor, since none of his targets had ever oppressed any of the others, every family had roots in immigrant labor, and they were all related anyway."
This pretty well summarizes, IMHO, the difference between the usage and intent of "Slants" and "Redskins" as group names...
This reminds me of the federal effort to get schools to change their mascots to ones that are not ethnic.
UNC in Pembroke NC was told it had to drop its Native American mascot because it was insulting. The students told them to buzz off. The school is 90% Native American from the Lumbee and Tuscarora nations.
UNC in Pembroke NC was told it had to drop its Native American mascot because it was insulting. The students told them to buzz off. The school is 90% Native American from the Lumbee and Tuscarora nations.
16
The intent was good. The process was lacking though. In some cases mascots were depicted in cartoonish caricature art. Studies did show that this did not help specific communities. What the studies failed to show though was whether it was the way the mascot was depicted or if it is the mascot itself. In Oregon they mandated that high schools change their mascots. However, one high school in Oregon was able to keep their warrior mascot because it is a reference to Hawaiins. So according to the logic it is racist if warriors refers to native Americans in continental US, but enlightened if the mascot is a reference to native people of Hawaii. Go figure. Any use should be respectful - so in most cases it probably was best for schools to drop their old mascots. Yet how do you explain to a community where the majority of the people come from the same ethnic group that a mascot representing that ethnic group is a bad racist act, but they may freely to choose as their mascot a name such as farmers or pioneers and that that would be more appropriate?
Thank you for a well written article the does due diligence to both sides of an argument- a rarity in today's polarized society in the USA.
20
It does seem that Section 2(a) is unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Some of these applicants are indeed more "sympathetic" cases than the others, as the article suggests. I, for one, am least sympathetic towards the Washington Redskins. While I do believe the Redskins should be allowed to register their trademark, the fact that the NFL -- an organization so large and so wealthy -- will not take a hard stance against them is disgusting.
12
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4H0rwumscA