"The term "redskin" was not a derogatory term until misinformed, guild laden, white activists decided it was."
Uh-huh.
Would you mind explaining how those very-non-white Native American groups such as, oh, the National Congress of American Indians decry the term as offensive?
Seems to me like that's more than a few whiny Berkeley students to me.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/redskin
"Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive. American Indian and Native American are now the standard umbrella terms. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names (Cheyenne, Nez Percé, etc.)."
^So...bullshit...
It's an old term--like most English phrases, it's gone through revisions over the years, but it's been a pejorative for a long time...
Even if I was to be extremely generous and say that "long time" was more like 100-150 years rather than since the mid-to-late 17th century.
Furthermore, AGAIN--the Redskins' original owner?
George Wallace, a notorious racist...
You do not get the benefit of the doubt when your owner could quite possibly make Donald Sterling look sensitive by comparison.