In a sports landscape grappling with evolving sensitivities and historical reckoning, a stunning development has emerged from North Dakota, challenging conventional wisdom surrounding Native American team names. This is a story that overturns a long-held narrative, pitting a group advocating for the return of a controversial name against powerful figures in the sports world and even another prominent Native American organization.
This unexpected twist takes the form of a federal lawsuit filed by the Native American Guardians Association, known as NAGA. They have directly targeted the Washington Commanders NFL franchise, its new owner, Josh Harris, and the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, makes grave allegations that strike at the heart of identity, history, and who controls the narrative in this complex cultural discussion.
NAGA’s legal action is not merely about a name; it is a passionate demand for recognition, history, and a voice that they feel has been systematically suppressed. Their filing depicts a deliberate effort to erase significant aspects of Native American heritage under the guise of progress, arguing that the traditional identity of the team, far from being offensive, was actually a tribute to real historical figures and the warrior spirit.
This is an in-depth exploration of the claims, the parties involved, and the surprising arguments at the center of this significant legal and cultural battle.
1. **The NAGA Lawsuit Filing Against the Commanders and NCAI:** The legal action commenced when the Native American Guardians Association filed a lawsuit in federal court on the morning of the current day. This move holds significant importance as it directly contradicts what the lawsuit characterizes as a long-standing cancel-culture narrative regarding racism in sports, particularly concerning the former name of the Washington franchise. The suit was specifically filed in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.
The complaint designates both the NFL franchise, the Washington Commanders, and its new owner, Josh Harris, as defendants. This suggests that NAGA believes the responsibility for the alleged actions extends to the team’s leadership under its current ownership. It poses a direct challenge to the course the team has pursued since the name change in 2020.
Crucially, the lawsuit also designates the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) as a defendant, underscoring NAGA’s assertion that the issue is not merely a matter concerning the team but also involves conflicts within Native American communities themselves regarding representation and historical interpretation. The inclusion of NCAI highlights the profound divisions this issue has engendered.
2. **NAGA’s Central Claims: Defamation, Civil Conspiracy, and Civil Rights Violations: At the core of NAGA’s lawsuit lie serious allegations of misconduct directed against the defendants. The complaint alleges that the NFL franchise and its owner, Josh Harris, are guilty of defamation, civil conspiracy, and civil rights violations. These are substantial claims that imply a deliberate and concerted effort to damage NAGA and stifle its perspective.
One primary allegation is that the Commanders and the NCAI have played a role in suppressing Native American history. NAGA contends that the actions taken, including the name change and subsequent statements, have actively contributed to obscuring or erasing the positive historical context that NAGA associates with the former team identity. This suppression, NAGA asserts, constitutes not merely a branding issue but a violation of its civil rights.
The lawsuit explicitly states that the Commanders hold a “monopoly on the narrative” concerning Native American sentiment regarding the team’s 2020 name change. NAGA argues that the team is only willing to acknowledge the opinions of those who concur with them, thereby silencing dissenting voices within the Native American community and dominating the public discourse on this matter.
3. **NAGA’s Demands: $1.6 Million and “A Seat at the Table”:** The Native American Guardians Association is seeking significant remedies through its federal lawsuit. One concrete demand is for financial compensation, with the group seeking $1.6 million in damages. This figure presumably aims to address the harm that NAGA claims has been done to its organization, reputation, and efforts.
Beyond monetary damages, NAGA has a fundamental demand that goes to the core of its mission: “a seat at the table to share Native American history.” Plaintiff attorney Chad LaVeglia articulated this goal, emphasizing that they seek dialogue and recognition. NAGA feels it was excluded from the process that led to the name change and subsequent decisions, and it is now demanding inclusion in discussions about the team’s history and its relationship with the Native American community.
LaVeglia further explained NAGA’s desire for the Commanders to “fix the harm that they have done to NAGA’s reputation by calling them fake and attacking their very identity.” This highlights that a key part of the lawsuit stems from specific incidents in which NAGA felt slandered or dismissed by individuals associated with the team, fueling their legal action and their demand for acknowledgment and redress.
4. **The Commanders’ Official Response to the Lawsuit:** Following the filing of the lawsuit, the Washington Commanders organization issued a statement addressing the legal action. Its initial response was succinct and direct, indicating its intent to contest the claims made by NAGA in court.
A Commanders spokesperson stated, “We believe the complaint is without merit, and we will address the matter in court.” This response signals that the team intends to vigorously defend itself against NAGA’s allegations and does not consider the lawsuit to have a strong legal basis. It constitutes a standard response in the face of litigation, indicating a denial of the claims presented in the complaint.
The team reiterated this stance to another news outlet, stating that it plans to “address the matter in court” while firmly believing the lawsuit is “without merit.” This consistent message from the organization underscores its position that NAGA’s legal challenge lacks substance and will not prevail when argued before a judge.
5. **The NCAI’s Role as Named in the Lawsuit, Accused of Cultural Oppression:** The National Congress of American Indians, a prominent and influential organization in Native American affairs, is also a defendant in NAGA’s lawsuit. The complaint highlights the NCAI’s significant role in the public discourse surrounding the Redskins name and accuses the organization of actively participating in the suppression of certain aspects of Native American history and identity.
The suit alleges that the NCAI contributes to a “legacy of cultural oppression suffered by indigenous peoples.” This is a serious accusation, suggesting that NCAI’s actions, particularly its decades-long stance against Native American mascots and names, are not perceived by NAGA as advocacy for Native people, but rather as a form of oppression that resonates with historical injustices.
NAGA’s complaint contends that the NCAI is “on a mission to eradicate Native American history.” This reflects NAGA’s conviction that by advocating for the removal of names and images they regard as historical tributes, the NCAI is effectively attempting to erase the very history and contributions these symbols represent to NAGA members. It portrays the conflict as a struggle over historical memory and preservation versus eradication.
6. **NAGA’s Argument for the “Deep Cultural, Historical, and Emotional Significance” of the Redskins Name:** A central tenet of NAGA’s argument in the lawsuit is that the Redskins name holds profound positive significance for many Native Americans. The complaint explicitly states that the name “carries deep cultural, historical, and emotional significance.” This directly contradicts the arguments from groups such as the NCAI, which view the name as a slur or stereotype.
NAGA asserts that the name is significant because it honors “the bravery, resilience, and warrior spirit associated with Native American culture.” It frames the name not as a derogatory term but as a tribute to the strength and historical identity of Native peoples. This interpretation is crucial to its argument that removing the name is harmful and disrespectful to those who perceive it in this manner.
For NAGA, the name is intertwined with its identity and heritage. As plaintiff attorney Chad LaVeglia explained, “For NAGA, this is their identity. This is their history.” This emotional connection serves as a driving force behind their efforts to reclaim the name and their belief that its removal constitutes an attack on who they are.
7. **The Claim that ‘Redskins’ Uniquely Honored an “Actual Native American”:** Among NAGA’s specific claims in the lawsuit is the assertion that the Redskins were unique among NFL teams in how they incorporated Native American identity. The complaint states that the Redskins were “the only team in the National Football League (NFL) to honor an actual Native American.”
This claim specifically refers to the team’s logo, which, since 1972, has been a portrait of the celebrated late Blackfoot Chief John Two Guns White Calf. NAGA argues that this was not a generic or stereotypical mascot, but a depiction of a real person who played an important role in history. It sees this as a direct link to Native American history and culture, a level of specific honor that it claims was unparalleled in the league.
Plaintiff attorney Chad LaVeglia emphasized this point, stating, “The logo on the Redskins’ helmet is an actual person; it’s Chief White Calf.” He argued that every time the team played, “they were honoring Chief White Calf and battling on the football field with the same honor, integrity, and courage.” This perspective positions the name and logo as a tribute to a historical figure and a symbol of positive attributes associated with Native American warriors, fundamentally different from potentially abstract or stereotypical mascots.
Welcome back as we continue our in-depth exploration of the unexpected legal battle unfolding in North Dakota, challenging the widely held views on the Washington Commanders’ former team name. The lawsuit filed by the Native American Guardians Association, or NAGA, is not merely a legal filing; it is sparking a crucial conversation about history, representation, and who gets to tell the story. While Section 1 outlined the core claims and the initial skirmishes, this next part explores the rich historical context, the conflicting narratives, and the broader implications reverberating across the sports world.
We have heard NAGA’s powerful assertion that the ‘Redskins’ name and logo held deep historical significance, honoring real Native Americans. Let’s turn the page and explore the specific historical figures NAGA points to as the true inspiration behind the team’s original identity.
8. **The Historical Figures Behind the Name and Logo:** NAGA’s lawsuit and statements repeatedly emphasize that the Redskins name and logo were intended as tributes to specific, influential Native Americans, rather than generic or stereotypical caricatures. This is a cornerstone of their argument that the removal of the name constitutes an erasure of significant history. They point to the team’s origins and the evolution of its imagery over the decades as evidence of this positive intent.
The story begins with the team’s debut in 1932 as the Boston Braves, a name and image inspired by the 17th-century Lenni Lenape chief Tamanend, also known as Tammany. According to NAGA’s perspective, Tammany was a figure celebrated by the Founding Fathers and American Revolution troops, even referred to as the “Patron Saint of America.” This historical connection is utilized by NAGA to frame the team’s earliest identity as one rooted in American history and respect for a Native leader.
Later, when the team relocated to Washington, D.C., and eventually updated its logo before the 1972 season, NAGA highlights the involvement of Blackfeet Native Walter “Blackie” Wetzel. Wetzel, who also served as president of the NCAI from 1961 to 1964, designed the new logo. NAGA stresses that this design was intended to represent the celebrated late Blackfoot Chief John Two Guns White Calf and that it received widespread input and support from Native American communities at the time. It views this as a continuation of honoring a real historical figure.
9. **The Events Leading to the 2020 Name Change:** The decision to abandon the Redskins name and the Chief White Calf logo was not made in a vacuum. It took place in 2020 under then-owner Dan Snyder, a period marked by significant national attention on racial justice and cultural sensitivity, particularly following the murder of George Floyd. This broader societal reckoning placed immense pressure on institutions, including sports teams, to address symbols and names perceived as offensive or rooted in historical injustice.
According to the context, the former owner, Dan Snyder, “bowed to public pressure” when making the decision on July 13, 2020. This pressure was significantly fueled by organizations like the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). The NCAI had been calling for the removal of the Redskins name for decades, intensifying its efforts and advocacy in the years leading up to 2020.
The NCAI played a key role in ramping up this pressure. For example, in July 2020, as momentum built, NCAI President Fawn Sharp issued a statement saying, “The R-word is destined for the dustbin of history — it is not a question of if, but when, and that time is now.” The NCAI also actively called upon major corporate sponsors of the NFL, such as FedEx, to join them in demanding the immediate retirement of the name and mascot, advocating for boycotts to achieve their goal.
10. **Conflicting Perspectives: NAGA vs. NCAI:** The lawsuit brings into sharp focus the deep division and conflicting viewpoints within the Native American community itself regarding the Washington team’s former identity. NAGA and the NCAI, despite both representing Native American interests, hold fundamentally opposing positions on the meaning and impact of the Redskins name and logo. This is not merely a legal dispute; it is a clash over historical interpretation and contemporary representation.
As detailed in the complaint, NAGA argues that the name “Redskins” carries “deep cultural, historical, and emotional significance,” honoring positive attributes such as bravery and resilience. It regards the Chief White Calf logo as a direct tribute to a real person and a symbol of courage. Its view is that removing these symbols constitutes an act of erasing positive Native American history and identity, a form of “cancel culture” and even “cultural oppression.”
In stark contrast, the NCAI has long maintained that Native American mascots, including the Redskins, are harmful symbols that perpetuate disrespect and stereotypes. Its stance, consistent for decades, is that these images degrade, mock, and harm Native people, especially youth. The NCAI has supported legislation banning such mascots and regards their retirement as a step forward. A 2013 NCAI report, for instance, claimed these images fueled social ills such as low self-esteem and violence, though NAGA notes the report failed to mention specific historical figures like Tammany and White Calf.
11. **Funding Issues and Allegations Against the NCAI:** A notable point of contention raised in the lawsuit and accompanying reports pertains to the National Congress of American Indians’ funding sources. NAGA and others critical of the NCAI’s stance highlight these sources, suggesting that they influence the organization’s positions or raise questions about its representation of grassroots Native American sentiment. The context explicitly details where the NCAI reportedly receives its funding.
According to reports cited, the NCAI receives grants from various left-leaning foundations. Specifically mentioned are the Ford Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. InfluenceWatch.org is cited as reporting that the NCAI has also received over $26 million in funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Critics, such as NAGA’s president Eunice Davidson, suggest that these funding sources contribute to a “woke” or left-leaning agenda that seeks to “erase a culture” by banning names and images.
Beyond private foundations, the context also states that the NCAI is funded through American taxpayer dollars. According to claims made by the group itself, it receives support from seven different taxpayer-funded bureaucracies of the federal government, including departments such as Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, and Justice. NAGA President Eunice Davidson referred to the NCAI as a “Soros-funded slush fund” and a “radical” group making decisions “without the consent of or vote of Tribal Members,” suggesting that its authoritative stance on the mascot issue is “preposterous” and resembles “Communism” in its alleged oppression of dissenting members’ voices.
12. **Related Controversy: Sales Rep’s “Fake Group” Comment:** Adding fuel to the fire of NAGA’s lawsuit are specific incidents that they claim demonstrate the Commanders’ deliberate efforts to undermine their organization and suppress their viewpoint. One such incident, highlighted in the context and the lawsuit, involves comments made by a Commanders sales representative. This interaction became a focal point, illustrating the friction between NAGA and the team’s public – facing personnel.
According to text messages obtained, a Commanders sales representative named Matthew Laux allegedly told a former suite owner, Christina King, that NAGA was a “fake group”. King, who had given up her suite following the name change in solidarity with NAGA’s petition, was questioning her decision, and Laux made the comment in response to her mentioning the petition. NAGA claims that this was a deliberate attack on their integrity and identity.
The lawsuit goes further, alleging that Laux’s position authorized him to speak on the team’s behalf, making his comments reflective of the organization’s stance. NAGA’s complaint states that Laux was attacking their members’ “very identity”, calling them “fake Native Americans” and accusing him of using “selective racism”, a tactic that NAGA contends the Commanders have used before. While the Commanders issued a statement saying Laux “does not speak as a representative of the team”, NAGA president Eunice Davidson vowed that they would not be “intimidated or silenced” by such actions.
13. **Related Controversy: The Bud Light Partnership:** Another incident that drew the ire of NAGA and became part of the surrounding controversy was the Washington Commanders’ decision to partner with Bud Light as the team’s “official beer partner”. This partnership was particularly galling to NAGA because it had previously threatened both the Commanders and the Cleveland Guardians with a boycott “similar to Anheuser – Busch” if its petitions to revert team names were ignored.
NAGA saw the Commanders’ partnership with Bud Light as a direct affront, interpreting it as the team dismissing its concerns and its threatened boycott strategy. According to a NAGA spokesperson, Healy Baumgardner, the organization viewed the partnership as the “Woke, Cancel – Culture loving Commanders” pushing a DEI agenda against their own consumers’ outrage, calling it “a middle – finger to all Americans”.
This controversy highlights how deeply intertwined the issue of the team name has become with broader cultural and political debates. NAGA’s strategy included referencing the well – publicized backlash against Bud Light following its partnership with a transgender influencer, Dylan Mulvaney, as a potential consequence for the Commanders if they continued to ignore the call to reclaim the Redskins name. The team’s move to partner with Bud Light seemed to NAGA like a deliberate signal that they were not taking NAGA’s boycott threat seriously and were aligning themselves with entities that NAGA views negatively.
14. **The Wider Context of Native American Mascots in Sports:** The NAGA lawsuit and the controversy surrounding the Commanders are not isolated incidents; they are part of a much larger, decades – long debate about the use of Native American names, symbols, and imagery as sports mascots at all levels. While the Commanders and the Cleveland Guardians (formerly the Indians) have changed their names since 2020, many other teams continue to use Native – inspired identities, facing ongoing scrutiny and protests.
Professional teams like the Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Blackhawks, and Atlanta Braves are frequently mentioned in this context. For example, Native activists consistently protest the Kansas City Chiefs, particularly their name and traditions like the “tomahawk chop” chant and the wearing of headdresses, which critics such as Gaylene Crouser of the Kansas City Indian Center view as traumatic reminders of colonial violence and appropriation. Rhonda LeValdo, founder of Not In Our Honor, has even referred to games involving teams like the Chiefs and the 49ers (a name referring to gold miners who displaced and killed Indigenous people) as the “Genocide Bowl”.
The pushback against these mascots isn’t limited to professional sports. Across the country, athletic teams at the high – school level face pressure and potential legislation to change their names and symbols. The context mentions a pending state law in Minnesota that seeks to ban schools from using Native – inspired mascots unless approved by all 11 federally recognized Tribal Nations in the state. This law threatens 29 schools, including Warroad High School, which sits on Native – owned land and uses a Native American warrior mascot established to honor tribal history and supported by local Native organizations and prominent figures like NHL player T.J. Oshie. This illustrates the complexity and varied opinions surrounding these symbols, even within Native communities.
This deep dive into the NAGA lawsuit reveals a multifaceted conflict that goes far beyond just a team name. It touches on historical interpretation, the power dynamics of representation, internal disagreements within Native American communities, the influence of funding, and the ongoing national conversation about cultural sensitivity in sports. As this legal battle proceeds, it will undoubtedly continue to challenge perceptions and force a closer examination of the complex relationship between sports, history, and identity in America.
