Tag Archives: Washington Redskins

Revoke NFL's 'non-profit' status

If Congress is going to get involved in anything involving the National Football League, it should be quite specific and it should deal exclusively with matters of taxation.

Take the league’s status as a “non-profit” entity, which exempts it from paying federal taxes.

Yank that status. Now.


We’ve heard some clamoring from lawmakers about the House and Senate convening hearings over the issue of domestic violence. Accordingly, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., has proposed a bill that would remove the non-profit status and dedicate revenue received toward paying for programs dealing with this tragic issue.

The hearings are a waste of time. All they would do is give senators and House members a platform to pontificate in public about their indignation over domestic violence.

Other senators, such as Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., are targeting the non-profit issue as a way to punish the league for its support of the Washington Redskins team nickname, which many Americans believe denigrates Native Americans.

Whatever the cause, the tax issue is the only way Congress should get involved in the affairs of a private enterprise.

Frankly, I’m astonished that the NFL enjoys the tax-exempt status at all. To suggest the league is a “non-profit” organization is laughable on its face.

Congress has a role to play in fixing what’s wrong with the NFL. That role, though, should focus solely on taxation.

What's wrong with Chiefs?

I am OK with changing the name of the Washington Redskins.

Who, after all, ever uses that term other than in a derogatory context? The name ought to change.

Now comes this bit of conjecture: Will the Kansas City Chiefs’ name also come under attack?

I hope not.


Given that I’m not a Native American — even though I was born in the United States to first-generation Americans — perhaps I don’t get what’s so objectionable about the name “Chiefs.”

I’ll concede that the Chiefs long have been one of my favorite pro football teams. I was delighted beyond belief over their dismantling of the Minnesota Vikings in the fourth Super Bowl ever played. But I digress.

To this white man’s way of thinking, “Chiefs” shouldn’t be seen as offensive to Native Americans. By definition, the term identifies the leader of a Native American community. He is the most exalted member of that community and is treated with utmost respect, even reverence.

“Redskins” is another matter altogether. Let’s stop there. Leave the Chiefs’ name alone.

Welcome … the Washington Indians

An earlier post on this blog took note of the controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins’ name and whether it ought to be changed.

I have concluded that it should. I said so in the post, which then was distributed via Twitter and Facebook. One of my Facebook friends — and he’s an actual friend, not just a social media acquaintance — took serious exception to my notion that the Redskins name is offensive to Native Americans.

We went back and forth. My friend says we’ve fallen victim to political correctness run amok. Indeed, the Redskins name stood virtually unchallenged for many decades until the nation heightened its civil rights awareness. I keep returning to my point about the term “Redskins” and whether it originated as a term of endearment. I doubt it strongly.

Then a member of my family entered the fray. One of my sons noted that “Redskins” is a “descriptive term” coined by white people. It is meant as an epithet. His example: “Look at them Redskins. Let’s go take their land and stuff.” I died laughing.

His larger point is a valid one, which is that the term offends some people. Why not, then, simply change it?

He came up with this notion, which I’ll pass along here. Call ’em the Washington Indians, he said.

Interesting. We already have the Cleveland Indians in baseball. We also have several other duplicate team nicknames: The San Francisco and New York Giants, the Arizona and St. Louis Cardinals, the New York and Texas Rangers, the Winnipeg and New York Jets. There might be more … but you get the drift.

Besides, he said, you wouldn’t even have to mess with the Washington team logo.

Has anyone griped about the Cleveland Indians, a non-descript term that doesn’t offend anyone?

Problem solved.

Redskins name on its way out

I’ll admit that my opinion about the name of Washington, D.C.’s professional football team hasn’t gotten my dander up … until just recently.

As is popular to say in political circles, my view on the Redskins name has, um, evolved.

At one time I didn’t think much of the stink being raised by Native Americans about the name. They object to the Redskins name, calling it offensive and disparaging.

This week, the U.S. Patent Office weighed in with those who object to the name, pulling the patent trademark for the name, meaning the team no longer can use the Redskins name to market its products.


Should the feds get involved? Sure, but only at that level, I suppose.

My own feeling, as of today, is that enough people now have complained loudly about the name of the team that it should change. The NFL team’s brand has been all but destroyed by the controversy. It won’t recover. Some media outlets no longer print or say the name of offensive team nicknames, which is their call to make.

I guess I’ve ended up with this threshold question, which leads me to support those who want the Redskins name to be dumped:

Would I ever call a Native-American a “redskin” to his or her face?

The answer is no.

There you have it. Change the name.

Redskins least of DC worries

I’m loving all the jokes about whether Washington, D.C.’s professional football team should change its name from Redskins.

Native American groups are demanding that the team change its name, claiming it is insulting to Native Americans. You’ll recall those old Western films in which the cowboys would refer to “them Redskins” in derisive, even angry inflections in their voices.

Well, it seems the team nickname has now become the latest target of those who seek some form of political correctness.

The jokes go something like this: Washington wants to change the name of the NFL Redskins because the name conjures up negative images of the city. So the team will be known as the “D.C. Redskins.”

Or the name would change to merely “The Redskins.”

The point is that the name of the professional football team is the least of Washington’s worries at the moment. The Redskins have existed since 1932. For 71 years the team name has endured. Now it has become a target of those who think the name is insulting.

If I were of Native American descent — a term, by the way, I consider a bit curious, given that I, too, the grandson of Greek immigrants also am a “native American” — maybe I’d feel differently about it.

Many ethnic and racial groups have reason to be offended. I am still trying to understand why “Redskins” is so offensive.