Dan Synder promised to never, ever change the nickname of the Washington Redskins, but the other NFL owners might have something to say about that if it puts their tax-exempt status at risk.
The Washington Redskins’ name is facing a new attack, this time from two members of Congress. Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell, who heads the Indian Affairs Committee, tells the New York Times that if the NFL doesn’t take action, legislators will “definitely” review the league’s tax-exempt status. “You’re getting a tax break for educational purposes, but you’re still embracing a name that people see as a slur and encouraging it,” says Cantwell. She and Republican Rep. Tom Cole, a Native American Caucus member, have today sent a letter to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell condemning the name. Cole is one of two Native Americans on Capitol Hill, the Washington Post notes.
“The National Football League can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,” the letter says, noting that “virtually every major civil rights organization in America has spoken out in opposition to this name.” The lawmakers call on Goodell and the NFL to formally back a name change; though they aren’t explicit about the league’s 501(c)(6) status being in jeopardy in the letter, they do mention that status. A Redskins spokesman replies, via the Times: “With all the important issues Congress has to deal with, such as a war in Afghanistan to deficits to health care, don’t they have more important issues to worry about than a football team’s name?” He adds: “Given the fact that the name of Oklahoma means ‘red people’ in Choctaw, this request is a little ironic.”
I have a solution. Change the name of Oklahoma, too. Any state that sends both Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe to Congress is as worthless as tits on a bull. Might as well change the name to hide their shame.
Or they could keep the state name and call all their sports teams “The Okies”, which is totally not offensive but refers to the courage and strength of the white people who escaped to California.
Did I read that correctly? The NFL has tax-exempt status? What “educational purposes” can they possibly serve?
That seems totally crazy to me. Is there a credible reason the NFL should be tax exempt?
We can’t fund education for our kids, but the NFL is tax exempt? I hope someone is able to politely tell me that I have misunderstood.
Just the organization itself. It’s like a pass-through entity for a 32-team partnership. The org itself would pay very little in taxes even if it weren’t tax-exempt, although it does utilize the status to pay people like Goodell a whole lot ‘o cash.
I am not happy that they use it to advantage for people like Goodell, but I guess that’s better than what I was thinking. Thank you.
I’m more upset about how all the “501(c)(4)” groups like American Crossroads get away with it. Even with them, though, if they can show that they didn’t make any profit regardless, there’s very little tax that they would pay.
I think it would be better for liberals/progressives in the long run to advocate for making all corporations tax-exempt, and trade that for large tax rate increases on incomes (no matter how derived, with NO carve-outs for carried interest, etc.) over $1 million.
If corporations are all just pass-throughs, then companies would either spend the cash/invest it, pay their people more, or give out dividends.
The devil is in the details of course … energy companies should be paying larger taxes/royalties on oil they are producing, etc.
You are ornery today … and I am loving it.
The Redskins’ “damage control” team is all ex-Republican hacks, including George Macaca Allen hisowndamnself. They are embarassing.
Dear Congress,
Could you guys please send a similar letter to the Catholic Church, saying their tax exempt status is also in jeopardy?
Most sincerely, WaterGirl
Or any religious group that uses it’s pulpit for ideological purposes on a weekly basis. (In effect most all of them.)
How about Bullets? No one’s using that these days.
I don’t mind calling them the Washington Whitedogs.
The term “redskin” was the result of Anglo settlers skinning the natives and presenting them to government officials for a fee. Some of those skins were sold to make lampshades and ladies’ gloves made from the skin of dead American Indians. The term “redskin” was used to describe the skin of a dead Indian.
American Indians weren’t the only people doing the scalping. European settlers scalped natives in large numbers. In fact, the height of scalping Indians occurred in the mid-18th century, with written documents by people of all walks of life describing it. One man — a reverend in the local church — described how much money he had received as his share for supplying ammunition and provisions to a scalp-hunting party.
You know, because Jesus demands whitedogs kill redskins.
No fear.
New names for Oklahoma:
Fucktardia
Wingnuttia
Claptrapia
Shitzlzania
White Biafra
…and, of course, Baja Kansas.
No, Oklahoma is Inner Dumbfuckistan.
Texas, of course, is Outer Dumbfuckistan.
I’m going to go with Booman’s language here and just say why not “Tits on a Bull”? It’ll go great with the cowboy myths and iconography they’ve got there.
Let them keep the name. The word “redskin” is the name of a potato.
In fact, if you squint, the logo can look like a potato.
Call them the “spud” or the “taters”. Let the opposition teams chant “Peel the taters”. When they say “We’re the hogs!!” yell back “You’re just a bunch of spuds”.
Instead of changing the name of Oklahoma, one could restrict representation to one of the “Five Civilized Tribes” that were given it as “Indian Territory”.
The obvious name change, given the skyboxes, is the Washington Lobbyists. It’s only truth in advertising.
Congress should take away the tax break anyway.
It is so much fun when PR flacks completely don’t get it. The Redskins and SodaStream are going to keep the issues with them alive just because of their persistence in defending the indefensible.
If you want truth in advertising,
Call them the Washington Crooks …..
I have a solution. Change the name of Oklahoma, too. Any state that sends both Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe to Congress is as worthless as tits on a bull. Might as well change the name to hide their shame.
Well, all right, Oklahoma has done plenty to earn the scorn of everyone here, but in the context of this story at least, they’ve done nothing to invite it. Oklahoma has nothing to do with this issue aside from having been named by a spokesman for an NFL team at the opposite end of the nation as an excuse for his organization’s racist name.
Oh wait, there IS a connection to Oklahoma: Tom Cole, one of two members of Congress pressing for the name change, is from there. Shame!
Although, that said, if you think Coburn and Inhofe are bad, wait’ll you see their replacements. Especially if Jim Lankford is one.
“Given the fact that the name of Oklahoma means ‘red people’ in Choctaw, this request is a little ironic.”
Derp.
The phrase “red people” identifies a group of, you know, people. The name “redskins” trivializes those people as nothing more than the color of their skin.
Privilege. How does it work?
Compromise: change the football’s team name to the “Washington Oklahomas”.
It effectively means the same thing, but without offending those who do not speak Choctaw.
Call them the Feds and be done with it.