Of course, as any primary school pupil could tell you, the indigenous population of the Americas were called "Indians" because Colombus thought he had arrived in India. It didn´t take that long, however, before it was clear that this was not the case. So why did one continue to call them "Indians". Obviously the term was misleading. Why did they not invent another term to describe the native Americans?
Why did Europeans continue to call native Americans "Indians"?
- Thread starter Eivind
- Start date
Tallest Skil
Banned
Because it stuck. Same reason we call… dang, I had it… There are plenty in English. Words for nouns (and more than that) that don’t make much sense other than that’s what they’ve always been. Pineapple, for instance.
Anyway, we might have adopted “indioes” in English.
Anyway, we might have adopted “indioes” in English.
Last edited:
The term Asian, European, African, and so forth get used plenty. It's a statement about living on the same continent, that's all. Many people add an idea of homogeneity out ignorance, but the term Native American does not state that in an of itself. Just calling them American would lead to confusion due to the extreme minority that natives are.
Driftless
Donor
Each one of the groups would rightfully argue that they were a separate nation or a separate culture, (unlike those other guys across the river....
) Caribs, Maya, Inca, Iroquois Confederation, etc.
That is why I think one should come up with a new term, maybe taken from a major native American language, for instance a word meaning something like "people".
Which language there were thousands. Do we use Iroquois, Sioux, Illinois, Fox, Cherokee, or one of the many others and those are just the ones I remember right now.
Each one of the groups would rightfully argue that they were a separate nation or a separate culture, (unlike those other guys across the river....
Caribs, Maya, Inca, Iroquois Confederation, etc.
Well, of course, but that is the case for all areas. The point is that they have something in common compared to the people who settled in the Americas after Colombus. Besides, we already use terms such as "Indians" or "native Americans".
Could always just troll almost everyone by picking a word from one of the Na-Dene languages such as Navajo or Tlingit, languages which have sounds not used in any other family.
There is a problem however in that many tribes' names for themselves actually mean "people" so picking a native term for that could just get even more confusing.According to the book 1491 by Charles C. Mann, a lot of indigenous people, especially in Latin America seem to prefer "Indian". An indigenous Bolivian told the author something to this effect:
"Somos índios. Los americanos nativos viven solamente en los Estados Unidos."
English translation:
"We're Indians. Native Americans only live in the United States".
Basically, the name stuck everywhere to the point where even those misnamed by it still chose to use it.
"Somos índios. Los americanos nativos viven solamente en los Estados Unidos."
English translation:
"We're Indians. Native Americans only live in the United States".
Basically, the name stuck everywhere to the point where even those misnamed by it still chose to use it.
I am not a linguist, so I cannot answer that question, but as far as I understand at least when it comes to South America, the different languages has much vocabulary in common.
A term that is sometimes used in English is "Amerindian". Although it originates from the mistake of calling the native Americans "Indians" at least I would say that it is a better term.
While i agree that "Indians" is both inaccurate and slightly insulting depending on your prospective, were probably aren't going to get something different. Its stuck around for five centuries, I doubt it is going anywhere soon. (And for the record, i am about equally uncomfortable with "Native Americans").
You have to remember that in America, since we are such a mishmash, we use sweeping terms for billions of people. Terms like White, Black, Asian refer to huge swaths of the world, groups that have very little or nothing in common. If you think that Americans will change their terminology because its offensive or inaccurate, i recommend looking up the debate of the Washington Redskins.
In reference to the origional question, i think the best option you might have is something like Canada, using "First Nations". I could see Americans using that. Our terminology is fluid, after all.
You have to remember that in America, since we are such a mishmash, we use sweeping terms for billions of people. Terms like White, Black, Asian refer to huge swaths of the world, groups that have very little or nothing in common. If you think that Americans will change their terminology because its offensive or inaccurate, i recommend looking up the debate of the Washington Redskins.
In reference to the origional question, i think the best option you might have is something like Canada, using "First Nations". I could see Americans using that. Our terminology is fluid, after all.
Well the Apache word for themselves means 'people'. They're a fairly famous group. So let's use there's. What is it you ask? Inde! So the adjective attached would become Indean I guess.
But seriously, we don't call Europeans Menschen or Asians Ren.
Apart for some old legal stuff and whatnot the term Indian for Natives in Canada is all be vanished. First Nations or just Native gets used like 80-90% of the time. Amerindian is more common than Indian.
I am not saying that it is offensive to call them "Indians" (in fact I would say that it is offensive to people from India to say that it is offensive to call someone "Indians"). What I say is that it is misleading to call them "Indians". About "native Americans", I think this it would have been better with a single-word-term. Besides, many Americans (whichever American country they come from) of other ethnisities might argue that they are born in America and therefore also are "native Americans". About terms such as "black" or "white", my impression is that in the United States and in many other western countries, there is a tendency to call someone who is the child of a "white" mother and a "black" father (or the reverse) "black", as in the case of Barack Obama. So I agree that which group one is placed in often are not very logical, but rather the result of white-centered/ethnocentric ideas.
This is true in the United States as well. Studies have consistently shown a preference for the term Indian over Native American among the tribes themselves, even though the latter is supposedly more "politically correct."
Many names are etymologically misleading. White Americans are often called "Caucasian" even though very few have ancestors who originated from the Caucasus region.
Ultimately, the bigger issue is whether the term causes offense to the intended group, and by and large "Indian" does not.
It's changing a lot now because there are so many ACTUAL Indians moving the the U.S.