The NFL should kick racist teams out of American football

Let us examine your scenario:"Now look here, Yankee, I want the finest wine available to humanity: I want it here and I want it now. What do you mean 'this is McDonald's'? God damn your insolence, I'll have a bottle of Mouton Rothschild soixante-dix-neuf or I'll have your guts for garters….bloody Yankee sommeliers, they haven't got the first idea…"That, I think you would agree, would offend most Americans and I'd even venture to suggest that such a discourse in an American restaurant might elicit some negative comments the other diners.I entirely agree. In line with this, let us, examine a similar scenario:"Now look here, American, I want the finest wine available to humanity: I want it here and I want it now. What do you mean 'this is McDonald's'? God damn your insolence, I'll have a bottle of Mouton Rothschild soixante-dix-neuf or I'll have your guts for garters….bloody American sommeliers, they haven't got the first idea…"Having removed the horridly offensive term "Yankee" and replaced it with the neutrally descriptive "American," the derogatory nature of this scenario is neutered, yes? It is now completely neutral, with minimal chance to offend anyone.Hm. Perhaps not. What about this scenario?"My! You managed to find a glass of Mouton Rothschild soixante-dix-neuf, and an excellent vintage too! I have to hand it to you Yanks, you know your customer service!"Wow. A crude, pejorative statement like that is liable to get you shanked in an alley!To be more serious, the removal of the term "Yankee" doesn't affect the rude nature of the first scenario, nor does its inclusion in the second magically make it rude. It's clear that the harm of the word comes from its use and intention on behalf of the speaker.Regarding the accusation of racism. From your quote:"We work to remind people of consciousness of the use of the symbols resemblance to other historic, racist images of the past."This is selective. In the first round, your link specificly noted that the origin of the term was neutral. So the question is, why focus only upon the negative aspects of the phrase? No reason is given.Furthemore, offensive is not synonymous with racism. I provided criteria for racism:"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race, based on the belief that one's own race is superior" I haven't seen anything that shows that naming a football team "Redskins" or "Braves" or "Chiefs" or "Yankees" does any of those things.In conclusion, I will submit that the choosing of the names is, perhaps, insensitive and lacking in awareness of the sensitivities of others. But it is that at worse. Consider, if racism is truly the motive here, then how is that goal achieved through naming a sports team as such? Sports teams are intended to be a source of pride, a rallying point. So what's the thinking here? "Ha ha Native Americans, we wish to discriminate against you, so we're going to build a lucrative franchise and massive fanbase using a nickname for you. That'll teach you!" I'm sorry, but I don't understand how that works.Regardless, thank you for posting this debate, I found this enjoyable.