I applaud Courtland Milloy for his Nov. 3 Metro column, "For Sure, That Name Is a Loser," which described the "curse of the Redskins and that ghastly name."

I am a member of the Eastern Pequot tribe of Connecticut, a 20-year D.C. resident and a loyal Redskins fan with a caveat -- I am appalled by the team's name.

When Jack Kent Cooke was the team's owner, he was afforded elder-statesman treatment regarding the offensive name largely because he was the product of a long-ago era. Dan Snyder does not qualify for that luxury.

In 2001 Mr. Snyder said that the name was intended to signify tradition, competitiveness and honor and that it was not intended to be derogatory. He's obviously not reading the same history books that I am.

As Mr. Milloy noted, the term "redskin" was used by bounty hunters to describe the scalps taken from Indians they killed.

In 1999 a panel of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the team's trademarks on the grounds that the name disparages American Indians in violation of federal trademark law; the ruling was overturned on a technicality four years later. By a vote of 12 to 1 in 2001, the D.C. Council passed a resolution calling for the team to change its name, which is "offensive and hurtful to many Native Americans." Many school teams with names that refer to Indians have changed names in recent years.

It's long past time for Mr. Snyder to do the same. If he doesn't, our elected officials have the responsibility to revisit the issue.