Just to add to the anecdotes, when I was living in Wisconsin I knew a few Menominee and Ho-Chunk (Winnebago) people and none seemed to care whether they were described as American Indian or Native American. I did know one guy who’d refer to himself and others as just “Native”, as in “He’s Native, but I don’t know what tribe.”
And now I must share a funny experience I had. For the record, I am a very white looking white person. When I was in college the dining hall would occasionally serve vegetable curry, but it was pretty bland and disappointing. I was standing at the buffet once and said “This curry is pathetic. My MOM makes better curry than this.” The girl standing next to me said “Oh, are you part Native American?” :smack:
I just said “Uh, no, I’m not.” I figured it wasn’t worth trying to explain that curry wasn’t that kind of “Indian” food.
No it isn’t offensive and it shouldn’t be offensive unless you’re actually an Indian taking offense at it. Not some overly delicate person taking offense for someone else. Fuck that.
Yeah, I don’t see the problem with one ethnic group showing respect for another either. And Hendrix was 1/4 Native American, so he’d be an appropriate figure to mention on the site either way.
I’m looking at the website now and I don’t see a picture of Hendrix, but I do see a banner for an exhibit called “INDIVISIBLE: African-Native American Lives in the Americas”. So it looks like the exhibit isn’t about African-Americans in general but people of mixed African and Native American ancestry. I’m guessing Hendrix was being used as an example of such a person.
I can beat that! My nephews are on the Cherokee rolls and their last full-blood ancestor was their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother! That’s seven greats, stretching back to the late 18th century!
However, their documentation was impeccable. Their great-grandmother (my grandmother) was Chief William P. Ross’s granddaughter, and well-known in Tahlequah historical circles when she was alive.
Because we’ve been using it for 500 years already.
And it’s not incorrect.
I’m not a linguist, but I’m pretty sure that if a word is commonly understood to mean something by a large population and over a period of time, then that definition must be accepted as legitimate. I think five centuries is enough time.
The name was based on an incorrept assumption, sure, but at this point that’s just a technicality.
Nobody I knew objected to Indian unless it was said in a derogatory way, and I met quite a few mixed and full-blooded Indians. Granted, I lost contact with most of them when I moved to a city, and that was around the time the politically correct movement started up. But most of them probably would have thought it was stupid white-people crap.
I call myself an Anglo-American mutt, since I’m a blend of half of western and northern Europe, with a couple tribes of Indian mixed in. The Cherokee on my paternal grandmother’s side is well documented with pictures, genealogy, and geography (she’s from Tennessee). I was told that my paternal grandfather was part Iroquois. He always downplayed it, but he’s also the one who introduced me to one of the few full Miwok left around in the Mokelumne area.
The ancestry basically doesn’t show in me at this point, being greatly diluted. I tan a weird tone when I do manage to get some color, and I’ve got a touch of oddness around the cheekbones and eyes, but that’s about it. My father shows it a lot more.
Another reason so many people claim Cherokee ancestry is that the Cherokee managed to survive. Most of the smaller and weaker tribes were wiped out, bred out, or lost their heritage. The few people who made it often didn’t intermarry, and so there aren’t as many side-branches into the main population. It’s not really that the Cherokee are the “cool” tribe as it is that they were one of the more successful.
I know a few Indians, and not one objects to the term. Oh, wait a minute! They’re FROM India. D’oh! :smack:
However, when I lived in Albuquerque, I did work in a certain capacity with a number of Navajo and Pueblo peoples, and I cannot recall any of them objecting to the term. Can’t say for certain whether it ever came up, now that I think about it.
I was going to comment on that. My wife worked as a liaison with some indigenous groups (not just NA Indians but also Central American and Caribbean peoples) for the opening of that museum.
When I took a “History of Native Americans” course in college a few years back, the instructor started the semester by saying that you’ll get some people offended by Indian, some offended by the overly PC “Native American” and some offended by anything else. But on balance most were okay with or preferred Indian so don’t be surprised when he casually switched between them while lecturing. He wasn’t of native blood himself but was deeply involved with local Indian groups and arranging events for them.
Doesn’t offend me. I know some but very few Indians who are offended by the “label”. Native American is fine, Indian is fine, First Nations and Indigenous are fine…just don’t use Redskin. That ain’t fine.
I’ve got a friend who’s part of that particular movement. He refers to himself either as “native” or by the indigenous group of which he is a member.
In Guatemala, the modern Maya refer to themselves as “Naturales”, which makes sense. “Indios” is considered offensive or at least not very polite; in contrast, “indios” is commonly used in other parts of Latin America as an inoffensive term.
There’s a lot of variance; if/when you come across someone of indigenous North/South/Central American Pre-Columbian heritage, ask them what they like to be called if they don’t mention it. I have yet to meet someone who takes offense to you using their self-identifying terminology.
