Do Native Americans have terms for 'Native American'?

[Urbanredneck]

@Lemur866

The early history of the colonial era is a long record of various tribes thinking they can use their alliance with the funny strangers who just showed up to finally get even with their age-old enemies next door.

It worked well in Hawaii. A king got some guns and conquered all the other islands, thereby uniting them under one rule which in a way worked out pretty well because that dynasty lasted for about 200 years and the Hawaiian royal family still holds some rights.

[rbroome]

@Colibri

Clarification: Mann’s two books are 1491 and 1493. (Missed it by that much ;))

I think prior to that Europeans would have distinguished themselves on the basis of religion rather than geography, as being part of Christendom (which mostly coincided with Europe but extended to parts of Asia as well.)

Oops!
you are of course correct. He mentions 1492 in the book so much, I lost track. I was referring to 1491. Excellent book. Very well researched and honest. He has a particular point of view, but he is very clear about that and backs his contentions up.

[John_Mace]

@Colibri

I think prior to that Europeans would have distinguished themselves on the basis of religion rather than geography, as being part of Christendom (which mostly coincided with Europe but extended to parts of Asia as well.)

I was thinking the exact same thing. There were Christians (European), Moslems (Middle Eastern, mostly) and Pagans (much of Africa, Asia).

[aldiboronti]

@rbroome

Certainly a better term should be coined, but he wasn’t able to find one. “Native American” was rejected by many-after all everyone born in the Americas is a native american and so the term isn’t helpful in any logical sense.

Yes, I don’t believe it’s a useful term. In fact wasn’t it used in the 19th century by Anglo Americans to set them above such recent immigrants as the Irish, Italians, etc?

[Kobal2]

@John_Mace

I was thinking the exact same thing. There were Christians (European), Moslems (Middle Eastern, mostly) and Pagans (much of Africa, Asia).

Hindoos had their own classifier, though (at first Europeans thought they were a strange breed of exotic Christians)

[lynne-42]

I have hit this problem with gusto writing a non-fiction book soon for publication. It draws on non-literate cultures from all over the world, but heavily on indigenous Australians and Americans. If at all possible I use the language group affiliation (as is the culturally sensitive term, I am told) - but even that gets complicated. The main Native American / Indian group I write about are the Pueblo, but they have 7 language groups - Hopi, Tewa, Zuni … - so if possible I use those. Their main centre in Albuquerque is called the Indian Pueblo Cultural Centre. In Washington, where I also met with indigenous Americans, the museum is called the National Museum of the American Indian. So I figured that Indian was the way to go.

Then there’s groups like the Tlingit who are both Native American / American Indian and Canadian First Nations … a lot to add to a sentence which is referring in brief to their totem poles

But Australian publisher style manuals insist on Native American. Same issues here with indigenous Australians, some who prefer we use Indigenous Australians and others Australian Aboriginals, yet Australian Aborigines is often used when that is less acceptable. The Nations tag is also used for larger groupings. I mostly refer to Yolngu and Yanuwa and other language groups, but my work is about the memory methods used to store vast amounts of information. There is a significant change in memory technologies between mobile (not nomadic) and settled cultures. So I need the big generalisations.

It’s a difficult decision when those you are referring to don’t have a unified preference but that’s not surprising given they are individual cultures.