Cleveland Negroes, is that racist? So then why Cleveland Indians ok?

Because there're less "indians"?
[BTW: I think both are racist]
;-)

Indians is not offensive when refering to Indians however, it does show ignorance when referring to Native Americans.

Because the word negro has acquired the taint of racism, where as Indian has not.

Cleveland Negroes and Cleveland Indians would be, on the surface, equally offensive or non offensive.

The problem is is that, while "Indian" is considered to be generally bad form, "Negro" is considered to be moderately to seriously racist. If the word "Indian" comes to have as bad a public perception as "Negro," "Cleveland Indians" would be considered as offensive as "Cleveland Negroes."

It is a matter of how the words are perceived.

An example: I would not care one way or another if the team was called "Cleveland Gypsies," which is as inaccurate as the word "Indian," but I would find it offensive to have it called "Cleveland Gyppos," "Gyppo" being our version of "n*gger."

That's an old question first asked By Russell Means of the American Indian Movement back in the seventies. I am 1/4 Comanche and 1/16 Apache and I don't find it offensive at all. The fact that the white eyes took our land...now that's offensive!

Is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People racist? Is the United Negro College Fund racist? It appears that when money is flowing their way, it's all good. Take rap songs for example...please, take them all. (Henny Youngman, RIP.)

It's kind of funny but as a person of Jewish heritage I would love to see a team called "The New York Hebrews" or "The New Jersey Jews". I think that would be great. I am not into my religious backround nor my heritage at all and I would not find it offensive at all.