A visual description of a person is offensive? I'd argue it's less offensive than the term "Indian" (Cleveland Indians). American Natives were incorrectly given this name when settlers came to the Americas thinking they landed in India.
Heck the term African American is pretty damn misleading and is used to describe any black person in America.
White people are born in Africa, why is it that if they legally migrate to America they aren't African American?
What do you call a black person who lives in the UK?
This term also assumes all black people who live in the United States have lineage back to the continent of Africa, despite the fact that black people come from many different places like Haiti, Jamaica, the Caribbean, Trinidad, etc.
Offense is derived from context. Constantly bickering about the proper nomenclature is a power grab utilized to manipulate and distract people from participating in discussion on actual problems in the US (and elsewhere).
In fact forcing a name change sounds an awful lot like the assimilation Native Americans were forced through. When we had Natives attend English speaking schools, gave them English names, forced our religion(s) upon them and tore them from their previous way of life.
The people had a name--Cherokees or Navaho- but to classify them as a skin color is bigoted--It was probably not meant to be a negative comment, but it was a stupid one (even 100 years ago or whatever). I agree that the Cleveland Indians is also disturbing, but not because they were misnamed, because that logo is demeaning.
I do not see how misnaming a race is more offensive than classifying it by skin color.
I didn't coin the term "African American" but I tend to agree that it is misleading. However, I don't know of any black people not of African origin to be offended if called it. I do, however, think they would be offended if we called them blackskins--as they should.