Here's the thing, while I think the arguments against the Washington Redskins is a bit extreme, I can understand why people have problems with it and am not completely opposed to the name being changed if it truly offends people.
But it's a false equivalence to liken it to the term "cracker."
Why? Because, well, simply white people in this country are by and large the dominant race. And as an extension of that over the centuries we've came up with a number of slurs against people of other skin colors, redskin being one of them. So it's a term that was used to oppress and put down an entire race of people.
The term "cracker" doesn't have that same weight, it's a term that was created by the oppressed to put down their oppressors. Which, well, doesn't hurt nearly as much. To borrow from Louis C.K. on the subject:
"What are you going to do, call me cracker? "Darn, ruined my day. Taking me back to a time of owning land and people."
So, yeah, they're not the same thing at all. Terms white people created to put down other races were created to marginalize them and "put them in their place." Terms they came up for us? Was them trying to fight back, but really can't hurt as much because at the end of the day we used those terms to oppress and control an entire group of people in order to make them on a lower level than "us."
Calling us "cracker" is pretty much them going, "Well you're a doody head too!"