Things like Arrowhead, the Chiefs and Native American imagery in general is understandably a mixed bag of valid points and over-reactions.
I'm a huge supporter of the Redskins changing their name, but just that the name 'Redskins' is downright offensive.
It's been said over and over, but it bears repeating. There is a 0% chance anyone would find this acceptable:
And refering to them as 'black' isn't even offensive at it's core and we wouldn't use it. However, 'Red Skin' in and of itself, is mind-blowingly offensive. Where people will refer to their skin as 'black' there is no Native American that would refer to themselves as 'red' (maybe someone naive, but a little history lesson would change their mind). Red is referring to the freakin' SCALPING of their people:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/redskin-name-update
There is no way we won't look back on this and all agree that the Washington Redskins was a mindblowingly embarrassing time for racial equality. The fact that it's even a debated topic is blowing my mind.
The USE of imagery is still tricky though. Is a sacred headdress REALLY offensive? Or are we just being hyper sensitive? Honestly, I wish we just focused on the Indians and Redskins and stopped watering down the whole debate with fuzzy issues. There should be zero question that the Redskins should be changed, and SLIGHT reasonable debate against the Indians being changed.