While the word Redskins can be meant in it's negative context, one can't argue that it can also be seen in it's positive form. In the context of this thread most people choose to see the negative in it. I assume most of the US population does.
As stated numerous times the N-word is also often used in a positive context. Usually, but not always, within a specific race.
Who knows what they were thinking when they chose the name? It may be correctly documented somewhere. However I do not think that when the name was chosen it was meant in a negative context. Most sports teams choose a name that depicts strength and they would like their team to be percived from this standpoint.
If one chooses to place a derogatory meaning to the name that was their choice, not the intended vision. Almost anything can appear to be inflammatory in some sense if you allow yourself to go there.
I do not think that was the intended vision of the team when the name was chosen and I think it should be taken as it was intended. Even if you do not agree you must be able to see where it could be taken as a positive image of the American Indian.
To turn that into a negative is the personal choice of those who percive it that way. I think Washington's logo is professional and I do not believe I have seen the team show it in the negative way it has been portrayed here.