Since the NFL approved the sale of the Commanders on July 20, Josh Harris and his ownership group have given mixed messages about whether they will consider reinstating the team’s long-time nickname, the “Redskins.”
When asked at his first press conference about the possibility of the team rebranding again, Harris said the new owners will look at everything regarding the name, but that a change isn’t one of the team’s top priorities. Harris and his fellow owners including Magic Johnson have since referred to the former moniker multiple times. Harris, who grew up in the D.C. area, told fans at FedExField that he remembered when the “Washington Redskins” were the NFL’s No. 1 team, prompting the Commanders to say that reference by Harris didn’t mark a change in the team’s retirement of the Redskins.
At the same time, many fans have been clamoring for the owners to revert back to the Redskins. A Change.org petition urging the team to restore its original name has attracted more than 85,000 signatures, including me. According to the petition, “The name `Redskins’ carries deep cultural, historical and emotional significance, honoring the bravery, resilience and warrior spirit associated with Native American culture. It was never intended as a derogatory or offensive term but as a symbol of respect and admiration. Changing the name abruptly disregards the positive legacy that the Redskins name has built over the years and disorients the passionate fans who have invested their emotions, time and unwavering support in the team.”
The Native American Guardians Association (NAGA), a 501C3 organization that calls for increased education about Native Americans and greater recognition of Native American heritage, launched the petition in June.
Plus, just last week, NAGA demanded a meeting with the new owners as part of its “Reclaim the Name” campaign that aims to restore the Redskins as the team’s nickname. In a letter to the Commanders, NAGA founder and president Eunice Davidson threatened to encourage a national boycott of the team if it fails to restore the Redskins’ name. She noted that a boycott has caused Anheuser-Busch to lose nearly $30 billion in value in light of its Dylan Mulvaney fiasco. “WE WILL DO JUST THAT,” she stated regarding a boycott.
“At this moment in history, we are formally requesting that the team revitalize its relationship with the American Indian community by changing the name back to `The Redskins,’ which recognizes America’s original inhabitants, and (by) using the team’s historic name and legacy to encourage Americans to learn about, not cancel, the history of America’s tribes and our role in the founding of this Great Nation,” Davidson wrote.
“As the NFL franchise representing the nation’s capital, you have a distinct opportunity to recognize the history and value of the American Indian,” she added. “Other professional teams like the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Chicago Blackhawks have kept their Indian-based names—with the recognition that it carries an obligation of honor and respect.”
On a personal note, I’ve never hidden my disdain for the campaign to retire the Redskins’ moniker. I and millions of other loyal fans of the team have only known that name in the context of a pro football franchise that has never sought to mock the Native American community. Listen to my July 2020 interview on WJFK 106.7 shortly after then-owner Dan Snyder announced plans to retire the name. In my upcoming biography on legendary coach George Allen, George Allen: A Football Life, I elaborated on how before the 1972 season Allen was instrumental in approving the logo of a proud-looking Indian chief that adorned the Redskins’ helmets for nearly 50 years before it was retired in 2020. The logo was originally the vision of a Native American, Walter “Blackie” Wetzel, then the chairman of Blackfeet Nation and a former president of the National Congress of American Indians. My George Allen book is available for pre-order on my web site: www.mikerichmanjournalist.com.
So will this pressure force the new owners to eventually restore the Redskins’ moniker? Or is it too controversial a switch because it will possibly trigger a wave of criticism that would just be a distraction to a franchise hoping to restore its standing as one of the NFL’s perennial contenders?
Thoughts from proponents and critics of restoring the name “Redskins” are welcome on my Facebook page.
