It is time the National Football League and Commissioner Roger Goodell face the reality that the use of the word “redskin” is unacceptable. It is a racist, derogatory term and offensive to Native Americans. The Native community has spent millions during the past decades fighting the racism that’s perpetuated by this slur. The fact the NFL and Goodell deny this is a shameful testament of the mistreatment of Natives for years. It is obvious that once the public understands why the word “redskins” is so offensive, they will know the word should never be used.

The origin of “redskins” is attributed to the historical practice of trading Native scalps and body parts as bounties and trophies. In 1749, the British bounty on the Mi’kmaq Nation was a straightforward “ten Guineas for every Indian Micmac taken or killed, to be paid upon producing such Savage taken or his scalp.”

Just as devastating was the Phips Proclamation of 1755 by Spencer Phips, commander in chief of the Massachusetts Bay Province, who called for the extermination of the Penobscot Indians.

Settlers were paid for killing and scalping the Penobscot people. The bounty for a male Penobscot older than 12 was 50 pounds, and his scalp was worth 40 pounds. The bounty for a female Penobscot Indian of any age and for males under 12 was 25 pounds, while their scalps were worth 20 pounds. These scalps were called “redskins.” The question is simple: suppose that a “redskin” scalp that was brought for payment was your mother, wife, daughter, father, husband or son? The fact is Natives are human beings, not animals.

The current Penobscot Nation chief, Kirk Francis, declared in a joint statement that “redskins” is “not just a racial slur or a derogatory term,” but a painful “reminder of one of the most gruesome acts of . . . ethnic cleansing ever committed against the Penobscot people.” The hunting and killing of Penobscot Indians, Francis said, was “a most despicable and disgraceful act of genocide.”

Recently, nine congressional members and I explained the history and nature of the term “redskins” in a letter to Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington NFL franchise. Similar letters were sent to Frederick Smith, president and CEO of FedEx (a key sponsor for the franchise) and to Goodell.

As of July 30, Snyder had yet to respond. Smith ignored our letter as well, opting instead to have a staff member cite contractual obligations as FedEx’s reason for silence on the subject.

Goodell, however, declared that the team’s name “is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.” In other words, the NFL is telling everyone – Natives included – that they cannot be offended because the NFL means no offense. Essentially, Goodell attempts to erase the stain from a history of persecution against Native peoples by spreading false information concerning the use of “redskins” by one of the NFL’s richest franchises.

Goodell’s response is indicative of the Washington franchise’s own racist and bigoted beginnings. Historians identify the team’s founder, George Preston Marshall, as the force behind the effort to prevent African Americans from playing in the NFL. Once African Americans were allowed to play in 1946, Marshall was the last club owner to field an African American player – a move he reluctantly made in 1962. Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall and U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy presented Marshall with an ultimatum – sign an African American player or the government would revoke his franchise’s 30-year lease on the use of the D.C. Stadium.

Rep. Tom Cole, an Oklahoma congressman and Chickasaw Nation citizen who co-chairs the Congressional Native American Caucus, states: “This is the 21st century. This is the capital of political correctness on the planet. It is very, very, very offensive. This isn’t like warriors or chiefs. It’s not a term of respect, and it’s needlessly offensive to a large part of our population. They just don’t happen to live around Washington, D.C.”

Rep. Betty McCollum, a Minnesota congresswoman and co-chair of the CNAC, states that Goodell’s letter “is another attempt to justify a racial slur on behalf of Dan Snyder,” and other “NFL owners who appear to be only concerned with earning ever larger profits, even if it means exploiting a racist stereotype of Native Americans. For the head of a multi-billion dollar sports league to embrace the twisted logic that ‘[r]edskin’ actually ‘stands for strength, courage, pride, and respect’ is a statement of absurdity.”

Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia congresswoman, states that Snyder “is a man who has shown sensibilities based on his own ethnic identity, [yet] whorefuses to recognize the sensibilities of American Indians.”

Recently, in a USA Today Sports interview, Snyder stated, “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. Never.” Snyder’s statement is inconsistent with the NFL’s diversity policy, which states: “Diversity is critically important to the NFL. It is a cultural and organizational imperative about dignity, respect, inclusion and opportunity . . . The overall objective of the [NFL’s] diversity effort is to create a culturally progressive and socially reflective organization that represents, supports and celebrates diversity at all levels.”

It is important the NFL promote its Commitment to Diversity and uphold its responsibility to disavow the usage of racial slurs. Just as important is the moral responsibility of the NFL’s 31 other football club owners to collectively have the necessary courage to speak against the use of this derogatory term. Snyder, more than anyone else in the NFL, should display sensitivity and appreciation for a people who have been maligned and mistreated for hundreds of years.

Suzan Harjo, president of the Morning Star Institute and citizen of the Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee tribes, summed it up best when she said, “[Redskins] is the worst thing in the English language you can be called if you are a Native person.” This is not just a statement but a direct invitation for Snyder and the NFL to do the right thing. I challenge Snyder to be reasonable and realize the harmful legacy that his franchise’s name perpetuates.

To correct the long-standing usage of the term “redskins,” the bill H.R. 1278 titled “The Non-Disparagement of Native American Persons or Peoples in Trademark Registration Act of 2013” was introduced. It would cancel the federalregistrations of trademarks using the word “redskin” in reference to Native Americans. The Trademark Act of 1946 requires that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office not register any trademark that “[c]onsists of or comprises . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead…or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

Native tribes have a treaty, trust and special relationship with the United States. Because of the duty of care owed to the Native people by the federal government, it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that the Trademark Act is strictly enforced to safeguard Indian tribes and citizens from disparaging trademarks.

Accordingly, the PTO has rejected applications submitted by the Washington franchise fortrademarks that proposed to use the term “redskins” – three times in 1996 and once in 2002.  The PTO denied the applications on grounds that “redskins” is a racial slur that disparages Natives.

In 1992, seven prominent Native leaders petitioned the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board tocancel the federal registrations for six trademarks using “redskins.”  The TTAB in 1999 ruled the term “redskins” may, in fact, disparage American Indians and cancelled the registrations. On appeal, a court reversed that decision,holding that the petitioners waited too long after coming of age to file their petition. A new group of young Natives petitioned the TTAB to cancel the registrations of the offending trademarks in 2006. The TTAB held a hearing on March 7, 2013 and a decision is pending.

H.R. 1278 is supported by major Native organizations, including the National Congress ofAmerican Indians. Jefferson Keel, a Chickasaw Nation citizen and NCAI president, said that our efforts as members of Congress will hopefully accomplish “what Native American people, nations, and organizations have tried to do in the courts for almost 20 years – end the racist epithet that has served as the [name] of the Washington’s pro football franchise for far too long.”

The Native American Rights Fund also supports the call to change the Washington franchise’s name. NARF issued a statement describing our efforts as “a clear signal that some [m]embers of Congress do not take anti-Native stereotyping and discrimination lightly. These representatives now join Native American nations, organizations and people who have lost patience with the intransigence of the Washington pro football franchise in holding on to the indefensible – a racial epithet masquerading as a team name.”

Despite the Native community’s best efforts before administrative agencies and the courts, the term “redskins” remains a federally registered trademark. It has been more than 20 years and this matter is still before the courts. This injustice is the result of negligence and a cavalier attitude demonstrated by an administrative agency charged with the responsibility of not allowing racist or derogatoryterms to be registered as trademarks. Since the government made the mistake in registering the disparaging trademark, it is now up to Congress to correct it.

Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin Faleomavaega is the non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives from American Samoa’s At-large congressional district.