But isn't the logo as racist as the nickname?
you must be thinking about the cleveland "indians" in mlb. their "name" is not racist, but their logo is. the redskins were just the "opposite". their "name" was racist, but their logo/mascot is not racist. some would even consider their logo "honorable".
so the redskins logo/mascot is not what got them in trouble, instead their "name" is what got them in trouble. i don't think anyone would complain about keeping the logo/mascot as long as they got rid of the "name".
no one complains about the golden state "warriors" because the name is not offensive. the atlanta braves gets some complaints but not because of their "name", but instead because of the "tomahawk chop" done by their fans...