The Smithsonian Institution has just opened the Museum of the American Indian. (Washington Post reports it in an article available for free here for two weeks.)
All the articles about the museum (and there are several in the Post) refer to these peoples as Indians. Has it once again become acceptable to refer to Native Americans by the name erroneously given them by early explorers?
It seems that way.
The Indians themselves have used the name quite a lot over the last half-century. Look, for example at the American Indian Movement (AIM). It’s sort of a case of taking over the colonialists’ word and appropriating it for your own purposes. Furthermore, the term Indian is no more or less accurate than the term Native American, if we’re looking for a term to describe all the Indians in America.
Before Europeans came, they had no collective term to describe all the tribes that made up the North American continent. Rather, they referred to themselves and to others by particular group or tribal or nation names. So, any term that attempts to encompass all “Indians” under a single umbrella is going to be somewhat artificial, and constructed especially for the purpose.
You can find a similar situation in Australia, where the term aborigine came to be used to describe the original inhabitants, even though it is a term that they did not use themselves, and that elides all the different regional and tribal boundaries on the continent. Some people think that using Koori is a more accurate term, and it does have the advantage of actually being an aboriginal word, but even that is a regional epithet applicable only to aboriginal Australians from the south-eastern part of the continent.
As a history grad student and teacher, i tend to vacillate between Indian and Native American when i’m talking generally about this group. If i’m talking about specific historical events, then i prefer to use the name of the particular tribal group in question.
I remember reading somewhere that some Indians are offended by the term Native American, since it implies somehow that they are not human, since there are no primates on this continent for them to have evolved from.
I can’t answer your question directly but I have noticed this too in just the last few months. The word “Indian” has started reappearing again in mainstream newspapers and magazines.
Hi, Hon. Dja go downy ewshun this summer?
I thought that aborigine was a term that was defined as any indigenous people as distinct from invading colonists, though is most often evokes the Australian aborigines.
Shouldn’t we be calling it the American Aboriginal Museum?
Anecdotal, of course, but my BIL is a Potawatomi. He uses Indian mostly; sometimes Native. I think it probably has a lot to do with who’s saying it…
Both things are true. In Australia, the term is often capitalised to emphasize that it is being used specifically about Australians.
A Lakota elder explained to me once that his people felt that “Native American” was a disingenuous attempt by the White Man to make superficial changes in our dealing with the People without really changing anything. Translation: Meaningless PC bullshit.
He also said that each tribe’s name for themselves literally translates to “Our People,” or sometimes “The People who Live Between That Rock and the River on the North Side of the Mountain,” so there’s no real name for all people who lived here before European colonization.
He said that if we would just return to them some useable land and freedom for their ceremonies, we could call him Savage Redskin for all he cared.
(This may have been only one person’s view, I certainly don’t claim to speak for the Lakota people.)
Just from personal observation, “Native American” does seem to me to be a term which isn’t actually used by the people it refers to. All the Indians I’ve ever met have called themselves Indians.
As a history teacher, I agree totally.
The term “Native American” is too general, and literally applies to anyone born on the American Continents. I use it mostly because it is the term most expect me to use. All of the tribes local to my area call themselves Indians when they aren’t refering to specific tribes.
In Canada ‘Indian’ is used only for certain ‘legacy’ government terms, such as ‘Indian Reservation’ or ‘Indian and Northern Affairs Canada’ (a federal government agency). More usual terms are ‘First Nations people’ or ‘aboriginal people’. The governing bodies of what are technically called ‘Indian reservations’ are often called ‘_________ First Nation’. Government and media in Canada are generally quite conscious of the historical treatment of these people (resettlement and abuse in religious residential schools, for example). The term ‘Indian’ has much the same status that ‘Negro’ has in the US, so it sounds strange when it’s used by Americans. Also, indigenous northern people are always called ‘Inuit’, which means ‘the people’ and is, therefore, a typical sort of names that an aboriginal group had for themselves. Most Canadians learned that ‘Eskimo’, the former Canadian and current American term, means ‘eaters of raw meat’ and is derogatory. This meaning is probably not correct (it comes from a French word of unknown origin), but using the term ‘Inuit’ is still more in keeping with using the name that Inuktitut speakers have for themselves.
In addition to what Roches said, in Canada the word Native is used, but around here (Saskatchewan) Native usually has a derogatory statement attached to it.
Grumble grumble … I for one like the term “Native American” because then “Indian” becomes unambiguously reserved for those who have some relationship to India (like me).
I am totally with acsenray. I get so tired of having to explain that i am East Indian when really it should be them who has to explain.
That having been said, I have had Native Americans get angry at me for referring to them as such. I feel weird calling them Indians beause of above reasoning.
So, what is the preferred singular version in Canada? First National? As in,“I’m Irish, but Joe over there, he’s half First National.”
“But my cousin Bob is half Bank of Saskatchewan.”
In day-to-day conversation, Joe over there would probably be “half Native.” I think that roughly speaking, “First Nations” and “aboriginal” are roughly equivalent to “African-American” in tone; “Native” would be roughly equivalent to “black” in tone; and “Indian” would (as has been said) be equivalent to calling someone a “Negro.”
Note: I haven’t lived in Canada for any significant period for the last few years, so I may be out of date here.
Here’s an example. “We had a First Nations meeting it was attended by the Slavey, Metis and Gwichen”.
Most people I’ve met would always identify themselves first with there “peoples” name.
In New Mexico and Arizona, I overhwelmingly see and hear “Indian” used among the people who ther term refers to. For instance there is a mural in the Mescalero Apache Reservation that says “Indian Power” - not “Native American Power”. Every Apache or Navajo that I have met introces themselves as a Navajo/Dine or Apache/Nde of a certain band, and as an “Indian”. “Native” alone is used occassionally among younger people, but Native American is not widely used. Indigenous is also used, perhaps due to Spanish language influence (“indígena” is the P.C. term in Mexico, as “indio” is often considered impolite).
Aboriginal is heard mostly in academic settings. But many people seem to think that it is particular to Australian peoples. Likewise, many people think Indigenous is based on the same root as “Indian”, but it is not. And if we really want to impress people we can use Autochthonous.
How about Amerindian? That term sometimes comes up in academic work. I don’t necessarily like the term and I don’t think American Indians use it much, but it is unambiguous compared to these other labels.
Also, I often hear people refer to any Indian or Indian-American as a “Hindu”. I suspect this is to avoid confusion with Indian where it is used primarily for Native Americans. But not all people from India are Hindu of course.
Today the term applies specifically to the followers of a religion, by originally it simply applied to anyone who lived in India. The term “Hindu” with regard to religion originally meant no more than it was the religion of the Indians.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1Hin·du
Variant(s): also Hin·doo /'hin-(")dü/
Function: noun
Etymology: Persian Hindu inhabitant of India, from Hind India
1 : an adherent of Hinduism
2 : a native or inhabitant of India