What she is saying is "You must be offended by X but you cannot be offended by Y". I disagree with her on this sweeping statement. Why don't we make up a set of rules so we all know what we can be offended by and what we can't? Would make everything much simpler.
Not at all what she is saying. not in the slightest.
One character was based on stereotypes historically used to degrade and insult, the other was not. Of course, everyone has the right to read what they want into either.
As i've said before, and as the article highlights as well, i dont think anybody really thinks silva intended the connotations or was even aware of them. They are still implied though, and some folk may well find that offensive should they so chose. It is absolutely fine for mendy and probably many who no longer see outdated stereotypes in things. But it doesnt belong on a public platform.
The main point to take away though from the article, that i agree with, is that the FA are making a big show over something relatively trivial, to distract from lack of action of bigger issues.