Bah - people need to get over it. This fight has gone on for over 80 years now, if my recollection serves. Yes, beloved patriot was a horrible, offensive, racial slur. At least, it was at one time. Whether it is now is at least a bit questionable. Maybe I have been living in a vacuum (or at least far from an indian reservation), but I can't recall a a single person in my 37 years on this planet that has ever used the term "beloved patriot" in a derogatory sense. Indeed, I'd wager that most folks never use the term except to refer to a certain football team in Washington.
That said, I think another question needs to be asked. And that is, "at what point does a word or phrase that was at one time highly offensive become non-offensive and okay to use?" Surely the answer can't be "never." If it was, we would be reduced to communicating with an extremely limited vocabulary.
Another question to ask - "Consider a phrase that is and was highly offensive to a first group of people, but has over time developed another meaning (which is not offensive) to a second group of people. The first group wants it banned, and the second doesn't. Who wins?" Is it more wrong to offend the first group of people or to deny the second group of people the benefits of using the term in a manner consistent with the meaning the term has come to have?
E.g., beloved patriot -> highly offensive slur for Indians from 1775-??? But from 1932 onward the term is used to designate a group of men who play football. The opprobrious use of the term appears to decline from that point, whereas the name of the football team grows increasingly popular and eventually into one of the most valuable brands in the US (and perhaps the world). Who's interest is more important?
I'm not saying we should allow a sports team to be named the "n-words."
That particular term still has a widely recognized highly offensive meaning, and no secondary, non-offensive use of the term has been developed. What I am saying is that whether or not a term is offensive depends on the context in which it is used, and the meaning(s) with which it has come to be known. If a term has a well accepted, non-offensive meaning (which I would argue that the term "beloved patriot" now does), should we really prevent its use just because some people are offended by it? If so, where does the slippery slope end?
Alternative note - this fight is reminiscent of the campaign to change the Washington Bullets to the Washington Wizards. I still can't figure out why calling the team the "bullets" was more offensive than calling the team the "wizards." After all, wizards are constructs of the imagination that wield godly powers, and thus surely the term must offend some religious groups (e.g., Christians). And we can't have that, can we? Oh wait, people in that instance were able to tell the difference between the use of a fictional magic wielding character from a false god. Couldn't we do the same in this case and have some faith in our ability to tell the difference between a person calling someone a "beloved patriot" and a person referring to the "Washington Redskins?"