But, I'm unclear that this logo has been used in a way other than a nod to the original inhabitants of their region. Has it been used in a derogatory way?

However, I think the “white” appearance of the woman is not helpful.

It took me me some time to realize it is much more than that.

In a loose comparison, Minnesota Norwegians are fond to be associated with the "Viking" label and use by the pro team football is positive. Native Americans do not want their heritage used in most any form of commercial properties, schools, and the like. It is their choice. I feel it is a right they have I will honor.

Derogatory or not, they want to have possession and control of the imagery and names of their heritage.

tribe members who still reside in the area feel similarly. In issues involving commercial purposes, very likely (perhaps). But more laudatory symbols ("braves," "warriors", even "Indians" ) have not been met with the same concerns or consensus, even though all concerned were more than willing to change the name and welcoming of that recommendation where it was rendered.

That's my point. Have they ACTUALLY been ASKED? If so, terrific. But, I don't think we should presume to conclude or speak for them. Not EVEN when we THINK that we know how they feel or would feel.

That is why I stated , "most any form." Cities, states, counties and some positive appellations using Native American words/names have not been seen as needing change.