That is a fair point. I don't want a license to be a oblivious insensitive knucklehead.

Maybe the question is better asked this way – Can there be racism without a racist?

I agree that people today are too easily offended, and often try to silence others and/or force them to change when they have no right to do so. But, that does not mean that there are never legitimate reasons to be offended.

It is my contention that Chief Wahoo is no longer even a caricature, but rather simply a trademark, a logo, and thus longer has any impact on the perception of Native Americans. I don't think he promotes any more good or ill will towards Native Americans than he does baseball or the City of Cleveland. I might be wrong, but those who assume that Chief Wahoo is reinforcing racial stereotypes might be wrong too.

The next question is – If I am offended by the color blue, does everyone have to stop using it to accommodate me? In reality, I would be expected to get over my issues.

That leads me to mens rea. One of the things that seems to get lost in these discussions is the intent of the person doing the insulting.

Oddly enough, the people wearing Chief Wahoo are doing it to support their team. Supporting people or an organization is about as far from racism as you can get.

Even if there was some harmful intent once upon a time. I assume that the last several owners keep the mascot for reasons of tradition and because of the marketing potential.

It deafens the ears to real racism when pseudo-racism is detected everywhere. I am afraid that legitimate acts of racism will not be treated properly. What if an act of housing discrimination isn't prosecuted because people are tired of nonsense like the county commissioner in Dallas who thinks that the term 'black hole' is racist?

Finding racism has become a cottage industry and that truly is a bad thing.

Why stop with The Chief? Is not your favorite baseball team politically incorrect? Don't you find the name and the insignia of the Yankees insulting to those of New England heritage?

While the sermon is not without merit, it is directed to the wrong audience.
None of the fans, haters, or team players have the the legal right to designate a "brand identity" for the American League professional baseball team based in Cleveland, Ohio. That right and responsibility solely belongs to the current 'ownership' of that franchise (subject to MLB approval).

AND RE: "After all, newly appointed Attorney General Eric Holder recently "described the United States … as a nation of cowards on matters of race, saying most Americans avoid discussing unresolved racial issues,""

As the old saying goes….it's time to put up or shut up. If you are truely impassioned with this issue, I suggest you use your legal talents to spearhead the assault on the actual offending party. And, since I tend to agree with your basic views on the racial nature of the issue, I too will 'put up' in my own small way. Instead of buying another Cleveland baseball tee shirt this Spring (yes, I'm a fan), I will contribute $24 to your war chest for this cause. Fair enough? Show me the paperwork and I'll show you my check.

It seems that the Cleveland brass have been making a gradual move away from Chief Wahoo in recent years, introducing the script "I" alternate logo and increasing the use of the script "Indians" logo in place of the Chief.

However, instead of these gradual steps, I think the time has come to move forward with a new, but familiar, team identity. My suggestion: rename the team the Cleveland Tribe. The name is a politically correct nod to the team's past; it's already used regularly by the press and fans; and it embraces the "Spirit of Ohio" (tribe defined: "a group of persons having a common character, occupation, or interest").