Meet the Native American Woman Who Took on the Washington Football Team

Amanda Blackhorse on the trademark victory and her clashes with racist fans.

Jim Mone/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Wednesday, the US Patent and Trademark Office terminated six federal trademark registrations held by Washington’s pro football team. The PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the team’s name cannot be protected, because it disparages Native Americans and federal law bans the trademarking of offensive language.

The decision is a victory for Amanda Blackhorse, a 32-year-old member of the Navajo Nation who became the face of the legal fight to revoke Washington’s trademarks starting in 2006. She was leading protests of the name when the law firm Drinker Biddle & Reath asked her to become the lead of five petitioners in its case against the Washington football team.

Blackhorse spoke to Mother Jones Wednesday about the ruling, the other professional sports teams in her crosshairs, and her own run-ins with racist Washington football fans.

Mother Jones: So you must be pretty excited today, right?

Amanda Blackhorse: We started this campaign eight years ago. So yes, today, it’s pretty overwhelming, but in a good way. When you’re part of a case that takes years and years and years, you wait all this time, and now it’s finally here, it’s just a tremendous victory. Not just for the five of us who were the petitioners but for the native country as a whole.

At an NFL game in Kansas City, “people yelled, ‘Go back to your reservation!’ ‘We won, you lost, get over it!’ ‘Go get drunk!’ And so many different slurs…I’ve experienced racism in my lifetime, but to see it outwardly, and nobody did anything?”

I hear the owners are going to file an appeal. I was hoping that maybe they would listen to us, and the majority of Native American people who have spoken out on this, and said, “We’re done fighting this thing.” But apparently they want to continue to stand their ground with this. And we’re the same way. We know we’re living in a time when calling someone the R-word is absolutely offensive.

MJ: Why did you get involved with protests of the name in the first place?

AB: Someone once told me—and then I thought about it differently—that mascots are meant to be ridiculed. Mascots are meant to be toyed with. They’re meant to be pushed around and disrespected. To have stuff thrown at them. That’s what I feel like happens at these games. There’s a lot of ridicule of Native American people. You have people walking around in face paint, fake war paint on their cheekbones, feathers in their hair.

Your team name may be the Braves—which is another stereotype, that we’re warlike and stoic—but the point is, no matter what your intentions are, when you make a Native American person [your mascot], you have no control over what happens at that stadium. And [Native Americans] lose control over what our image is.

MJ: I heard that one of your first protests, at a Washington-Chiefs game in Kansas City, was a pretty nasty experience.

AB: Oh, yes. People yelled, “Go back to your reservation!” “We won, you lost, get over it!” “Go get drunk!” And so many different slurs. People threw beers. That, to me, was shocking. I’ve experienced racism in my lifetime, but to see it outwardly, in the open, and nobody did anything? It was shocking.

That was the game where there was a port-a-potty in the shape of a teepee.

MJ: Has anyone ever called you the R-word, or have you heard it used against another Native American?

AB: No, and I’ve never heard a Native person call another Native person a redskin. I’ve been called a “stupid Indian.” I’ve been called a “savage” and a “squaw.” Not too long ago, there was a person who wrote a letter to the editor in our local newspaper, the Navajo Times, and this guy wrote in there that he’s “tired of the drunken redskins.” So people do continue to use that slur to this day. I couldn’t believe that was even printed.

MJ: How has it felt seeing so many lawmakers and news outlets side with you and condemn Washington’s team name in recent years?

“[Snyder] acts like he’s invincible. No matter what we say, I don’t think he’s going to change the name unless he’s forced to.”

AB: It’s tremendous. It’s great. I’m hoping that more of the NFL community would speak out, but it’s so great to see after all these years how this movement has grown. But Native Americans still need to demand respect for ourselves. That’s the point here. We need to stand up for ourselves in the general population and not allow people to push us around and stereotype us.

MJ: Would you like to see other teams change their names? Take the NHL’s Chicago Blackhawks, for example. It’s not a slur, but…

AB: Yes—it’s not a slur but it’s an appropriation of our culture. Any team name that references Native Americans, I think should go. No matter which way you swing it, you as a team owner and we Native Americans have no control over the type of imagery fans are going to seize on at your games.

I think that the Cleveland Indians logo is one of the most disrespectful representations of a Native American man out there. It’s awful. It’s cartoonish.

MJ: What would you say to Dan Snyder, who owns the Washington football team?

AB: I feel like no matter what we say to him, they’re not going to budge. The change will come from the political process. And some of it has to come from his fan base. From people in the area. I’m way out here in the middle of the Navajo Nation.

We knew early on that there was a lot of money at stake for the team. That this was all about money. And money talks. [Snyder] acts like he’s invincible. No matter what we say, I don’t think he’s going to change the name unless he’s forced to.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate