That’s still cooler than Assiniboine.
What about “injun”? 
I don’t. 
Also, one of the most numerous tribes these days. There really are a lot of Cherokee compared to some other groups.
As a matter of fact, my husband does claim to be a good part Cherokee - the difference in his case is that it’s not some oral legend passed down the family, he actually has names and photographs of the people in question. You know, actual documentation of the relationship. It’s kind of funny that the Cherokee in the family were more literate than the whites, what with the old “savage” stereotypes.
For the record, he uses both “Indian” and “Native American” pretty interchangeably. I think it just doesn’t matter that much to a lot of folks. It’s more the way the term is used than the term itself, you know, tone and body language and such.
It’s offensive to the kind of people who find it offensive.
Of course, having Sicilians in their customary garb encourage you to stop littering would probably be much more effective.
Most people would find that offensive. I’m not kidding. Honest Injun!
:d&r:
Easily prevented with a “dots, not feathers” pre-clarification.
It’ll blow her mind when she finds out about the American Indian Movement.
Point taken, though one probably should exercise caution when using an organization/agency name as a yardstick for everyday social mores. Case in point: United Negro College Fund.
Or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
You shouldn’t have done that “WOO-woo-woo-woo” thing with your hand over your mouth, that was your mistake.
For what it’s worth, and this is anecdotal, I was given to understand that the preferred usage (by the Persons of Pre-Columbian-American Ancestry concerned) is, by and large, “Native American” east of the Mississippi, and “[American] Indian” west of it, the “American” being used when there is a danger of confusion with persons of Dravidian/Indo-Aryan descent. I personally use “Native American Indian” whenever I need to refer to the ethnic group or persons from it.
If anyone’s wondering, up north in Canada it can go Indian, Aboriginal or Native. Officials and Metis people are kinda careful about using Metis. Officials because it is a different category than the aforementioned 3, and Metis people because it denotes that you’re not full-blooded (Metis are part Indian, part French).
We have the First Nations University, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technology, Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority…now that I think about it, anything run by Aboriginals uses Indian and anything on the Gov. of Sask. site uses Aboriginal.
Me, I’m Generokee. 
[mp3 alert]*
There’s a lot of Cherokee partly because of they way they chose to include people. Although they’ve changed recently, IIRC they used to allow people with one Cherokee great-great-great-great grandparent on the rolls. It’s been a bit of a topic sometimes in this area.
My mother swears that there’s an Indian princess in her family tree. Sacajawea, I think. Or maybe Pocahontas. I believed this until someone I dated was bitching about everyone always saying that. I was just glad that I hadn’t mentioned it previously! In my defense, I was only 19 or 20 at the time.
OTOH, there’s a photograph in my dad’s family’s photos of an Indian girl. Unfortunately, there’s no documentation of who she is. 
Mom’s first husband was Indian, although they wouldn’t admit it. My siblings would qualify for benefits, if they could get on the rolls. (Not me, I’m from the other half of the family.)
Mom looks Indian, and went to lots of ceremonies that she shouldn’t have, because she “passed”. She didn’t do it on purpose, just went with her husband. She didn’t know until many years later that it would have been a problem.
FWIW, from a recent exchange the SO had with some folks at the park, the current “in” term is ‘skin’. As in ‘redskin’, we think. I suspect it’s one of those terms that “ya gotta be one to use”.
I love this, but people look at me really funny when I use it.
*I can’t believe I actually found that. I heard it somewhere ages & ages ago, on the radio.
Yup. I know more people in real life who are from India than from any North American tribes, so I’d probably be confused at first by a reference to someone being “Indian” and not from India.
I am SO going to start using that. Not “Native American Indian”.
Persons of Pre-Columbian-American Ancestry.
Love it.
I was taught that ‘‘American Indian’’ is the correct term. I don’t really think anyone would be offended by Native American though. In fact, that’s what I say, because it seems a hell of a lot more accurate than American Indian. The only thing about ‘‘Indian’’ that seems wrong is that it’s unnecessarily confusing.
I’m sure it is, and it accounts for a quite a few blond-haired, blue-eyed Cherokee. On the other hand, in the south east you get a certain amount of black haired, brown eyed, dark skinned white people whose men have little to no beards. The Cherokee had relatively early contact with the Europeans compared to tribes west of them, which was most of them, and there was quite a bit of intermarriage both ways from early on. Couple hundred years of that and the ethnic appearance lines do start to get muddled.
As far as I’m concerned it’s their tribe/nation (actually, there are three Cherokee nations right now) and how membership is determined is up to them. I don’t have a pony in that race, and it doesn’t matter whether their methods make sense to me or not - the last thing they need is yet another bossy white person dictating to them.
See, that’s another way my husband’s family is different - they make no claim to princesses or the like. Just ordinary Indians. Of course, when you have names and photographs and actual information it does take a lot of the romantic gloss off things.
Of course we now have “person of color” which sounds almost exactly the same. :smack:
Wow, if the Shawnee used the same standard, I’d be able to qualify. There are a few genealogy buffs in my family who have pretty good records of her (at least, as good as any records that many generations back are likely to be). And no, she wasn’t a princess, just a local lady who married some Englishman.