A group of people incorrectly called an incorrect term for hundreds of years is likely derogatory. to most reasonable people. Not quite the same level but here is another analogy: you work with people at an office and your name is Bob. Your co-workers know your name is Bob, but they only call you Bill. That's demeaning and disrespectful, unless you have consented.
Functionality and common knowledge or usage do not negate the derogatory aspect of words. Black people were called a certain word, it may be construed by some as functional, and everyone knows what it means; but, that does not mean it is acceptable nor does the functionality of the word negate the improperness of the word. The same logic applies here. Please note: I am not going to engage a debate as to the hierarchy of "Indian" and the other, but merely address the underlying reasoning.
When I spoke of a tribe, I was speaking of the use of native peoples' warriors in general. When I said the statement about how the warriors are depicted, I was speaking of the (incorrect) use of the word "Indian," of the sort of silly drawing they use in the team logos, etc.
That said, I still am not totally sure I agree that "Indians" is demeaning. It's inaccurate, but the inaccuracy is not derogatory per se; it's an example of something that is incorrect but functional because everyone knows what it means.
All _that_ said....what matters is not my opinion, but those of the persons being inaccurately referenced, and so I defer to them )
WSJ piece on Rahm
The end of the piece mentions it could be tests designed to detect viral genes, not live virus particles, so he's not contagious at all.
Basically it's complicated. The piece has the details as to what's involved with reinfected athletes.