For over fifty years, combined action on the frontlines, in courtrooms, in boardrooms and on the corporate floor advocated for the retirement of the Washington Football Team鈥檚 racist name and logo. In July 2020, the team announced the change.
As the team gears up to announce its new name on February 2, the following timeline highlights key moments of Native-led advocacy and that brought the change.听
(Note: the Washington team鈥檚 former name is a with a , and is represented as 鈥淩鈥撯�撯�搒鈥� when used on the timeline.)
Name Origins, Early Engagement by Native Leaders, Mass Protests
1933听
Owner George Preston Marshall , beginning a legacy of anti-Native bias and race-based conflict. The team was the last in the NFL to desegregate, and in 2020 Marshall's visage and name from facilities and the team鈥檚 website after national calls for racial justice.
1967
The team secured its first federal trademark registration, and in 1971 debuted the circle-with-two-feathers logo that would be in use until 2020. A caricature of a Native American man was added into the logo in 1982.听听
1968
The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) 鈥渢o eliminate negative stereotypes of Native peoples in popular culture,鈥� with a concerted 25-year action plan to push the Washington team to voluntarily change its name.
1972听
met with team president Edward Bennett Williams to request ending the use of a "derogatory racial epithet" as the team name. Among them were community advocate LaDonna Harris of the Americans for Indian Opportunity and Seneca Nation advocate Laura Wittstock, as well as representatives from the NCAI, American Indian Movement, American Indian Press Association, and Indian Legal Development Service in Washington.
The group asked the team to sponsor a campaign to procure a new name and 鈥渁ctively encourage other professional sports organizations to cease the use of similar stereotypes degrading America鈥檚 Indian people.鈥� When Williams complained about the cost of a name change, Wittstock said, 鈥淵ou鈥檝e made money off this Indian stereotype for years, and we refuse to accept this kind of argument now. Any corporation that finds something wrong with its public relations or public image does not hesitate to change鈥� Any commercial use of a race of people can鈥檛 be glorification.鈥�
1992
Public action by Native leaders and allies escalated over the years, culminating in some Super Bowl XXVI, where the Washington team played the Buffalo Bills.
鈥淲e welcome all you good Washington football fans, but we don't welcome the chicken feathers, the paint, the cheap Hollywood chants,鈥� said Vernon Bellecourt, a leader of the American Indian Movement. 鈥淭he war paint is for our great ceremonies, our very sacred and revered ceremonies. When you put the paint on your face, you dishonor us and you dishonor yourself.鈥�
That same year, community leader led seven Native plaintiffs to petition the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel the disparaging trademarks. The case, Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, set off a series of high profile legal actions that continued until 2017.
Legal Wins and Losses, Investors and Shareholders Engage Sponsors听
1999
The R鈥撯�撯�搒鈥� after judges ruled that the name and logo violated the Lanham Act, which prohibits any trademark that disparages 鈥減ersons, living or dead鈥� or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.鈥� The decision was appealed by the Washington team.
2005
An appeals court ruled in favor of the Washington team due to laches, i.e. that the plaintiffs were over age limitations for legal recourse. Harjo et al. appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case in 2009.听
The same year, the American Psychological Association 鈥渋mmediate retirement of all American Indian mascots, symbols, images and personalities by schools, colleges, universities, athletic teams and organizations鈥� based on a growing body of social science literature that shows the harmful effects of racial stereotyping and inaccurate racial portrayals, including the particularly harmful effects of American Indian sports mascots on the social identity development and self-esteem of American Indian young people.鈥� Read the .听
2006听
A new trademark case, Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., launched with , whose age fell within the parameters of the legal timeline for appeals.
That same year, founding members of the newly formed Investors & Indigenous Peoples Working Group (IIPWG), including Oneida Nation Trust director Susan White, prioritized engagement with sponsors of the Washington team as a pillar of their advocacy.
2009
IIPWG submitted its first shareholder proposal to FedEx, the corporate sponsor with naming rights for the team's stadium. While yearly proposals weren鈥檛 granted a floor presentation until 2015, White was invited to meet with FedEx CEO Fred Smith in 2014.
2014
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office again . An appeal by the Washington team was moving through the courts, when, in 2017, the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision on Matal v. Tam听鈥� which allows racist and disparaging language to be trademarked under free speech 鈥� rendered Blackhorse鈥檚 case moot.
2015
Susan White was invited to give a shareholder floor presentation to FedEx. 鈥�,鈥� she told the company. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission blocked a proposal in 2016. White continued to engage the company until her untimely death in 2018.
National Calls for Racial Justice and Investor Action Culminates in the Team Name Retirement
2020
May: After the murder of George Floyd and other Black citizens by law enforcment, calls for racial justice resounded from the public. Corporations and sports franchises, , made pledges to stand for racial justice.
June: IIPWG gathered signatures from investors with cumulative assets of more than $620 billion on letters to team sponsors FedEx, Nike and PepsiCo, asking the companies to end business relations unless the racist name was changed. The action was steered by longtime IIPWG participants Oneida Trust, Trillium Asset Management, Boston Trust Walden, Boston Common Asset Management, First Affirmative Financial Network, Mercy Investments, and First Peoples Worldwide.
July: on July 2 in support of the name change, and overnight from its online store, after which , and issued statements in support of the name change. Retailers , and subsequently dropped all Washington team merchandise. IIPWG responded with a call for the team to invite Native leaders into the review process and address 鈥渁ll hurtful words, imagery and stereotypes, including the logo and mascot."
Native leaders sent a letter to the NFL commissioner on July 6, requesting immediate action to change the name and to include Native peoples and perspectives in the review process. Over 1,400 people signed the letter representing hundreds of tribal entities and Native-led organizations. The consensus: remove all Native mascots and imagery from sports.
On July 13, the team announced , and on July 23 as its interim moniker, with a stylized 鈥淲鈥� as its logo.
鈥淭his is part of a much larger movement going on that Indigenous peoples are situated in, and it is a long time coming,鈥� Carla Fredericks, a member of IIPWG and then director of First Peoples Worldwide . 鈥淚 think that for anyone that is associated with the movement for racial justice this is a significant gain, and this is a significant moment.鈥�
Change Continues to Ripple in Sports and Beyond
Since the Washington team鈥檚 retirement of its name, positive change has rippled throughout the U.S. and beyond. The Major League Baseball team in Cleveland , as did the Canadian Football League ; 听have retired similar names and mascots; twenty U.S. states to address derogatory names and mascots; and is on the rise.
With each instance of positive change, the and perpetuation of historical trauma diminishes. Native youth can participate in sports more fully without fear of being mocked and harmed, and can join and enjoy community sporting events without reticence and with pride in community.听
The Washington team鈥檚 rebranding affirms the critical importance for sports franchises to eliminate anti-Native bias and address systemic racism. It also shows a pathway forward for other professional teams, such as the , the , and the to make the necessary changes. Until such a time, measures and accountability throughout the leagues are necessary to ban racist fan behavior 鈥� such as stereotyping costumes, mocking chants, and derogatory language 鈥撎齮o ensure safe participation from Native fans and all spectators.
Images (top to bottom): The New York Times sports section , July 13, 2020; protests at the 1992 Super Bowl ; Suzan Harjo ; Amanda Blackhorse ; Susan White ; timeline illustration by .