What should we call "American Indians"?

Post Reply New Topic

That is interesting- the quote by russell means.

Not sure what to make of it.

He and I both hate the term "native american" but for different (but not incompatible) reasons.

He because he doesnt want to be lumped with somoans and eskimos, and Hawiian natives, ( even though he implies sympathy for those groups) were as I think that both russell means and myself ( a white guy) ARE both "Native American" because we were both born here so the term cant be used to mean his people as distinct from others.

His word-origin theory for Indian as coming from En Dio is at odds with what we all were taught in school- that columbus thought the folks who greeted him were south asians.

Why the Spanish conqistadors would consider indigenous americans more "in with god' than themselves needs to be explained.

Yay, a human catagory thread.

TheHaywire has a great point - there's no need to refer to people by their ethnic category (or indeed, their status as members of any other category) unless their membership of that category is actually relevant to the discussion.

That said, I've encountered a few people who are of First Nations or part First Nations descent, and generally their view seems to be that 'Native American' is an overly PC white folks' term and that just calling them Indians will do fine, thanks. If by context that's likely to be confused with the Asian kind of Indian, then American Indian seems an accepted specific term.

As people have pointed out, using the correct name of the specific nation concerned, if you know it, would also be courteous.

I tend to call them by their first names.

Indian or American Indian to distinguish it.

I've only known like 2 Indians(not counting the folks who claim like 1/8th blood) in my life that I can remember.

I'm a dot-Indian here who was raised in the U.S. When I was a kid, the word "Indian" USUALLY referred to the Native Americans (back in the 1980s)- all the textbooks called them the "indians" I was so confused because I knew I was Indian but not the type of Indian they were talking about. I was so happy when the Simpons aired featuring Apu, finally our kind of Indian in the media, I thought. (This was in 1990). IN the mid 1990s, Indian immigration to our area really took off. When I was in elementary school, I was one of maybe 3 dot Indians in the entire student body of 700. Now the same school is like 30 percent Indian.

There's so many of us in the area where I live that the word "Indian" refers to someone from India by default. I don't know what it's like in other parts of the country though. I wonder if I went to Minot North Dakota or Butte Montana, I could really confuse people with the riddle "I'm 100 percent Indian but I have no tribal blood in me."

Haven't seen this thread in a thousand years. Crazy random zombie revival.

"European." So an Irishman is the same as a Greek or an Italian or a Finnish person?

Indian is a person from India. The only reason why we call NAs Indians is because Columbus was an idiot (any calculation at all would have shown him that he had not sailed nearly far enough to be in India). Furthermore, it creates unnecessary confusion.

Native American makes sense and doesn't cause confusion. There's really no reason to go any further. I think the whole "American Indian" thing is meant to remove confusion while still following a tradition that was based off of idiocy.

And yeah, AllieKat did necro this thread, but until it dies again...

On several notes, I can really stretch things and say that I'm Asian-Indian, American-Indian, and A Native-American

My parents are from India so I'm Asian-Indian or East Indian or Dot-Indian
I was born in the U.S and therefore a U.S. citizen. so I'm American, therefore I'm American-Indian.
I was born in the U.S. so therefore I'm also a Native American

I think this Native American thing is too vague too and also American-Indian isn't quite right....
I also don't think I need the prefix Asian or East in front of Indian.....

dot vs. feather seems derogatory...

Therefore, I propose this can never be fully resolved; we just have to look at the context.

By their first and last name.

This thread needs help from someone not shackled by the bounds of political correctness. So here I come to the rescue.

Indians is not an optimal term because of the dot vs. feather ambiguity. Native American is a term that a wh***y like me has used to describe myself when my racial background is asked for on a survey, after all, I am a native of America. Again, too ambiguous. Aboriginal whatever the hell some of you said is way too long for a term like that to enter the public lexicon gracefully.

But I know the nomenclatural solution. A term that is already known (hint, there's a sports team with this name), not excessively long or obnoxiously politically correct, unambiguous, and even descriptive. The term:

Redskins.

I once had a fourth grade teacher tell me that I wasn't "Indian" because the word Indian belonged to the American Indians and I was a person from India. I argued with her saying well, I wasn't born in India- my parents were born in India and I was born here. She told me that in America, the word "Indian" had belonged to the American Indians for over 400 years so I should still call myself a "person from India" to avoid confusing them.

This wasn't even that long ago- This was in 1985 long after the civil rights movement. Can you imagine a teacher saying that crap today?

I believe some preferred group terms are:

First Nations

Aboriginals

Natives

well im a native from canada of the Mi'kmaq tribe and i prefer to be called Native Aboriginal

I don't see whats wrong with the word "Indian" and I still use it. Almost everybody in Alabama is part some kind of Indian (usually Cherokee, Choctaw or Creek) and that's the word that almost everybody here uses.

If we have to use the term "Native American" or whatever the PC crowd would prefer us to say, then can we start staying "Indian giver" again? I mean it's not like we are saying "Native American giver" and the phrase isn't associated with people from India.......

See where this leads?

I say call people whatever they want to be called, but remember that not every person wants to be called whatever the PC term is. One example is that I have very rarely heard a black person use the phrase "African American" unless they were on TV or using it in some sort of school thing, etc. Every single black person I know uses the term "black" but says they know they are "supposed to say African American". I wonder who that's supposed to prevent offending?

This question has NOTHING to with 'political correctness'.


What the people in question call themselves (they usually identify themselves by the tribe, and not by the race anyway) is not really the issue.

It has to with scientific and semantic correctness.

Whats wrong with "Indian" you ask?

Nothing- if you're talking about a person from Bangalore.

But why call a Choctaw an "Indian"?

The Choctaw did not get green cards and emigrate to our country from India. So isnt it rather silly to label them as being of a nationality that they have no connection to? Even if it doesnt hurt their feelings its still confusing and kinda dumb.

And if you do call them "Indians" then you have to tack on other verbiage to specify which kinda "Indian" you mean: Like "American Indian (as opposed to East or Asian or India, Indian), or Feather Indian (as opposed to Red Dot Indian).

I dont like "Native American" either because all of us non-immigrants are 'natives' to america. The word native is related to "nativity" and other words for 'birth"- it just means that you were born in the place in question.

On the other hand:Aboriginal American, or Indiginous American, are both closer to the mark. I like both.

With Indiginous American you dont have to change the initials on the luggage. So thats the term I lean toward.

So in a science article about(say) prehistoric migrations of peoples, I would use "Indigenous Americans" if I were the person making the rules.

I agree that "Indian" isnt quite in the same category as the N-word, or k*e, or Chinese, or Wop,or like that. "Indian" is ok for conversation. But in publications-especially science articles- some new term is needed IMHO.

I agree that "African American" is a bit unwieldy. For one reason- it creates the problem of what do you call a recent immigrant who was actually born in Africa? But thats a whole other subject.


You wouldnt have to give up saying "Indian giver". We americans still say "penny wise, and pound foolish" two centuries after we broke away from Britian and stopped using British currency. Folks will still know what you mean.