Four years ago, I wrote an opinion article for the Washington Post that began, "It's humbling to admit it, but Dan Snyder wins."
The piece was in response to a poll by this newspaper showing that 9 out of 10 Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins team name, just as owner Snyder had insisted for years.
I felt chastened because I had written 10 previous columns arguing forcefully for a change on grounds that the name is a racist slur.
In light of the poll, I dropped my public protests. I said it was "presumptuous" for white people like me to say we knew Native Americans' interests better than they did.
Now it turns out Snyder lost after all. On July 3, the NFL team announced a "thorough review" of whether to adopt a new name. Late Sunday, my Post colleagues reported that the team will announce Monday that it plans to retire the name, with a new name to be revealed at a later date.
Personally, I'm happy about the change. I will be able to root for the team guilt-free.
But it's also worthwhile to reflect on why it's happening now. The name has drawn significant public criticism for nearly 50 years, yet Snyder has consistently said it would "NEVER" change. ("You can use caps," he told an interviewer.)
The timing offers some revealing truths about how social change occurs in America. Snyder reversed himself now because of a burst of pressure from big corporate money. That pressure sprang from the national shift in public opinion on race after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. It followed nationwide protests focused mainly on police brutality against African Americans rather than issues related to Native Americans.