Am I the one who is being obtuse (re the term "Indian")?

In My Humble Opinion
1

This is a two-part question, so please bear with me.

An…acquaintance of mine is Native American. Cherokee, I think, though I’ve never asked; he tells me often enough though. Anyway he insists on being called “Indian”. I feel - well, it’s a little pedantic perhaps, but I feel the term Indian should be reserved for those from, well, India. To put all my cards on the table, yes, I am Indian, born in India. But I mean, that’s why the Native Americans were called Indians, weren’t they? Someone was confused?

His argument is…well, I’ve never gotten the full gist of the argument, as he’s not very clear about it. But basically it seems to boil down to “The Europeans gave us this name and now it’s too much trouble to change it, and we’ll use it to spite them, too.”

Please note that I do not actually argue with him on this. When he gets on this topic I just smile and nod. (We’re really just acquaintances.) But I can’t help thinking - we’re the Indians.

So that’s part one of my question - am I the one being overly stubborn? I never refer to him as Indian but I never refer to him as Native American (except in this one case) either. (How often does race come up, anyway? For him, a lot. For me, very little, except perhaps when people ask me about my name.)

Which leads me to the second part of my question. He feels that when people ask me, for example, “Where are you from?” it’s incumbent on *me *to emphasize that I am “E. Indian.” Granted, I’ve used that term before, to clarify, but it’s usually a second thought after people ask me “What tribe?” (I don’t look Native American in the least btw. I don’t particularly look Indian, either, though.) So he feels I should be the one to anticipate it and say “E. Indian” while he should freely be able to say “Indian” and have everybody know what he means.

To me that’s a complete WTF. *We *had the name first, not to be childish. I’ll gladly correct people if they guess the wrong one - I mean, I have my own culture, I don’t need to appropriate another - and sometimes I’ll even start right out by saying E. Indian, if I think there will be misunderstandings, but to insist *his *people have a stronger right to the name just gets my goat. The word *India *comes from the Sanskrit word for the Indus river after all. And I don’t see how it’s fair for *them *to appropriate *my *culture in order to get back at some dead white man, either.

So here are my questions, broken down:

**1. Do you think that Native Americans should be called Indian? Not just if that’s what they want, which as I said is their right, but all the time? **I am willing to bend on this one - I feel if people ask for a title, that’s what they should get - but it still rankles the tiniest bit. Even on the “call people what they want” - if I went around demanding to be called “Bharati” (the true name of India) or perhaps “Hindustani” do you think people would do more than give me a funny look? I mean, people yell at me for calling myself “American” and meaning “from the US”.
2. Do you think that Native Americans should be the “default” Indians and those of us from India should just move on?

(Yes, yes, I know it’s a minor issue altogether. Where else do I go for such issues?)

2

No and No.

I would never use “Indian” for a NA unless explicitly asked by someone, and then I’d only use the term as it referred to him/her specifically, but not as a group in general–and even then, I would use “American” in front of it.

As soon as they come up with an alternative to Indian-from-India, I’ll go along, but until they do, I’ll happily use “Indian” that way and assume everyone is doing so also (unless context suggests otherwise; I live in NorCal, so we have more Indians than Native Americans anyway).

3

For most of American history, Native Americans were THE Indians. We didn’t have any of the other kind. So there may be a sense that Native Americans are entitled based on precedent.

And in a way, it’s just as much a historic accident that India is called “India” as that Native Americans should be called “Indians.” Who decided that the Indus should give its name to most of the subcontinent? Probably some outsider, no?

I think ownership of the name is up for grabs, personally.

4

Setting aside all of the politics and etymology, I tend to default to the societal norm on questions like this. It’s similar to my response to grammar nazis who bitch about “ain’t” and “irregardless”. If it’s become widely accepted and understood, it becomes a valid part of our language.

In the US, outside of certain metropolitan areas, I presume that when Indian is first mentioned the average English-speaking American assumes you mean Native American. If that assumption is true then my personal verdict is that they win the term. In short, it’s a word intended to communicate information, so if it conveys a certain meaning that becomes it’s meaning.

In England, Indian certainly means East Indian. This isn’t think only instance where we’d be 2 countries separated by a common language.

5

Yes and no.

For right or wrong, Indian is a common and well-understood name for the aboriginal peoples of the Americas and it’s either that, Native American, or just calling them by their tribe. While the last would obviously be the best, Indian works best since it’s all-inclusive and Native American just sounds clumsy. Plus, if I remember correctly, I seem to recall there’s a current backlash against the term.

As for the second point, I can’t imagine any conceivable reason why Indians should “move on”. The name of the country in English is Indian and English is full of words with more than one and often mutually exclusive meanings. Isee no reason not to continues as we’ve been doing and just use contextual clues or, if lost, ask for clarification.

6

I say the terms American Indian and Asian Indian remove any ambiguity about a person’s ancestry. But in the United States, the default assumption when somebody says Indian is going to be American Indian and that’s very unlikely to change. American Indians are more common in the United States and are more a part of American culture.

It could be worse. I’ve heard the term “the other Indians” used by people who don’t mean to be offensive.

7

“Indian” was the term for Native Americans for years before the term “Native American” first went into preferred use (it was used for many years as a synonym for “Indian,” but was far less common). Nowadays, it looks like those who are Native American (a term that’s just as ambiguous as “Indian” – I am a native American, but have no Native American blood) usually prefer “Indian” while outsiders insist on “Native American.”

People managed to deal with the ambiguity for centuries. It just happens that one word describes two things, which is hardly uncommon in our language. It’s no different from “mouse” in that respect. If the term is ambiguous, then you add something to make it less so.

8

Living in Central Jersey, my default assumption for “Indian” is Indian-from-India, but I’m sure that’s not too common elsewhere in the U.S.

Yes, I think you’re being too stubborn. We’ve been using the word “Indian” to refer to the indigenous people of the Americas for better than 500 years now. Regardless of the (mistaken) origin of the word, it is fully entrenched in our language and our understanding.

The term “Native American” isn’t any more accurate anyway. I’m a native American. I was born here. (I’m not a Native American native American, though.)

So as to whether we should call “Native Americans” Indians or not–I’ll leave that decision up to them. I’ll continue to use the terms interchangeably except where I know that one or another (or the tribe name) is more correct in the context.

And as to whether they “should” be the default Indians–well, as others have pointed out, for the vast majority of Americans, they ARE the default Indians. So I think you have to resign yourself to that.

But to make your life a little easier, instead of saying “I’m Indian,” why not say “I was born in India” or “My parents are from India” or whatever seems right at the time?

9

You’re being too stubborn.

  1. Why wouldn’t you call someone what he wants to be called?
  2. As others have said- “Native American” doesn’t mean anything either. The American Indians got here before I did, but I was born here too. Neither of us are “native” to here, their ancestors just got here before mine did.
  3. The English-English call them “Red Indians.” That’s a bit worse, don’tcha think? And, by all accounts, “Red Indian” was in use before “Native American” was. So why not use that? O hyeah, because they don’t want to be called that.
  4. You’re in America, so you use the preferred convention here, which is “Indian.” Which is, again, what many/most members of the group prefer to be called.
  5. I don’t get pissed if mistaken for Welsh, even if, according to me, I look nothing like a Welshman. Why would you get pissed if mistaken for a Cherokee?
    There are plenty of bigger, badder, more easily defensible pet causes.
10

Even in NYC, 25 years ago I would hear the phrases “Indians from India” or “Indian Indians” (or just “Hindoo”, such that you could almost hear the Kiplingesque spelling in the spoken word) to refer to “proper” Indians, since simply saying “Indian” would result in a mental image of the sad, stony faced guy with the feather headdress weeping a single tear at all the landfills polluting the American landscape.

I definitely don’t see the term “Indian” ever meaning “from India” as a default association for most Americans, at least in terms of percentage by electoral votes. (The major urban areas of the Northeast and West Coast being the exceptions.)

11

Welcome back Mika; I missed you.

A rose by any other name and all that…who cares? Really?

12

Yeah, Indian here, I really think you’re being oversensitive. It applies to both of us; how can one group claim to have proper “ownership” of a term? Also, I don’t think either of you needs to specify which kind of Indian you are; I’ve been asked “what tribe” before and I just explain that I’m from India.

Gestalt.

13

I think there’s one exception. When Americans talk about an Indian restaurant, it’s usually assumed they mean one that serves cuisine from India not Native American cuisine.

14

In Canada, saying ‘Indian’ to refer to The People Whose Forefathers Got Here Right After The Ice Caps Melted is almost gauche. The preferred term (in newspapers, etc) is “First Nations people(s)” or “Aboriginal”. Some may call this a smidge pretentious, but it leaves ‘Indian’ as the term reserved for those folks with lineage from that country attached to Pakistan and Nepal. I believe the British use “South Asian” to refer to TFWLFTCATPAN-and as a west coast of North America person, I always think of south Asia to be places like Malaysia and places actually south of the equator.

Back to Aanamika: tell your Cherokee chum that if he gets to be "indian’ because that’s what the Euros called them, can’t you be Indian for exactly the same reason?

15

I have spoken to several American Indians who prefer the term “American Indian” for the reason Green Bean alluded to: anyone born in this country is a “native” American. I tend to use the two terms interchangeably in usual conversation.

If I’m speaking about a specific person, I’m going to use the term they prefer - not the term someone else thinks I should use.

16

  1. Yes. It’s a 500-year old mistake, but that’s what they have been called in this hemisphere ever since, not only in English but in Spanish (indio) and other languages. As far as I have ever heard, most Indians in the US prefer “Indian” to “Native American,” or at least don’t mind it. (In scientific contexts, I tend to use “Amerind” for clarity, but that seems unlikely to catch on in general use.)

  2. Yes, but this is not a “should” question, it’s merely recognition of facts as the are in the US. As others have said, for centuries American Indians have been the “default” Indians in this country, since Indian Indians have been a much smaller minority. So today American Indians de facto continue to be the default. There is absolutely nothing you can do about this, so you might as well move on. This usage will almost certainly not change unless there has been sufficient immigration to make Indian Indians a lot more visible than they are now.

17

1.) Yes. The term is well-entrenched and has defied attempts to replace it. I personally favor “Amerind” - rolls off the tongue, has a certain logic to it, is unambiguous - but I seldom see it.

2.) The default is the assumption made by the listener in the absence of clarifying information. I really doubt that our society is either willing or able, much less both, to dictate a default to the whole country. So it will be used for both Amerinds and Asian Indians, and I just don’t see much of a problem there.

3.) Your acquaintance is being a jerk about it. Your consolation is that he will be no more successful than you in trying to change most other folks’ thinking and practice on the issue.

18

I don’t think this is a idea to be dismissed out of hand. It’s my understanding that Amerinds as a population are diminishing at a somewhat alarming rate, while Asian Indians make up one of the largest immigrating nationalities over the past couple decades.

That said, American society will decide when the language will reflect this circumstance, if ever.

19

I know several “American Indians” and they call themselves Indian. If it works for them it works for me.

Cheers

20

How hard is it for you to understand the term “South Asian?”

If you live in the United States, “Indian” refers to the indigenous people who lived in this country at first contact. You know this, of course. This question is nothing more than an attempt to, what would you say? Troll.