I'd think about the only way it would change is if the USA had given itself a different name, and didn't refer to themselves as Americans. Then, the term could be applied to Native Americans, just like Europeans, Asians, etc....
Why did Europeans continue to call native Americans "Indians"?
- Thread starter Eivind
- Start date
tedio
Banned
And the same reason why we continue to call Japanese 'Japs', and Nigerians 'Niggers'.
Well, that's just a rather inaccurate and ignorant statement. More accurately we call the people of Nippon 'Japanese,' and there are countless ethnic groups in Nigeria. And the word 'nigger' is from the Spanish 'negro,' or black, through French. Note the hard g. Nigeria is named for the Niger River, which is not originally related to the word for black. The Tuareg name for the river sounds similar to the Latin for black, 'niger.' Note the soft g.
SinghKing
Banned
Kind of the point. Using the term 'Indian' to describe native Americans is also rather inaccurate and ignorant, and we could be far more accurate, rather than using blanket terms based on rationales which have long since been debunked. But we choose not to be, and as such, we still use the term anyway.
Given that the people themselves generally are fine with the term "Indian"- and often prefer it to "Native American" - you're coming off very patronizing here.
One Native activist said he rather have his people named after an ancient Asian civilization who never did his people any harm than some Italian who did.
As far as actual Asian Indians, once the police was passing around fliers looking for an "East Indian" in our neighborhood. I was like what is that, someone from the former Dutch East Indies?
As far as actual Asian Indians, once the police was passing around fliers looking for an "East Indian" in our neighborhood. I was like what is that, someone from the former Dutch East Indies?
SinghKing
Banned
I don't agree with 'Native American' either. And 'Indian', is a nationality, not an ethnicity. There are even more distinct cultures and ethnicities in India than there are in the Americas; far more than there are in Europe. And 'European' is also fine- as a categorization which is also based on nationality, rather than one with a racial basis, it's also acceptable. So's 'African'- if the said group of people are actually African nationals. IMHO, using these blanket terms to cover anyone and everyone from a (extremely vague and non-specific, absurdly broad, and poorly defined) racial background isn't a good thing; it is inaccurate, and it does show ignorance ("Russians, Turks, Brits, Frenchies, Italians, Swedes, Spaniards- what's the difference? They're all just Europeans, and they're fine with that term. Don't patronize them by distinguishing between them.")
I've taken to calling myself "Native Canadian", when someone does not know who the "Metis" are.
The term European is used all the time. There's no derogatory ignorance by discussing a group of humans under a title that is based off of their geography. Someone can be ignorant and think everyone of a group is the same, but that goes to any level (continent, nationality, ethnicity, village, family, etc.).
SinghKing
Banned
But the term 'Indian' doesn't have a geographical basis for the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Perhaps this would be a better example to illustrate the point I was trying to make; "Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentinians, Columbians, Venezuelans, Chileans, Cubans- what's the difference? They're all just Hispanics, and they're fine with that term. Don't patronize them by distinguishing between them."
There is a geographic (and historical) unity to them. The Americas were isolated from the old world for millennia. They were also more or less universally victims of the disease outbreaks of the Colombian Exchange.
Also no one said it was patronising to divide between Iroquois and Cherokee and Mayan and Quecha. They were saying it was patronising to become offended for an over arching term that many are fine with. Do you rally against calling Europeans European and state that Europeans should be outraged by the idea?
SinghKing
Banned
Is a Brazilian 'Hispanic'? Is a Haitian 'Hispanic'? Are the natives of those lands, descended from those peoples who originally resided there prior to the arrival of Columbus and the Conquistadors, 'Hispanic'? There may be some geographic (and historical) unity between them, but that tag certainly can't applied to them all without becoming somewhat condescending.
Well, if they're fine with the over-arching term, then fair enough. One can't be offended on someone else's behalf when they're not. But the original usage of the term was still rooted in ignorance, and was, as it still is, inaccurate. Was it prejudicial ignorance? Originally, yes. Is it still prejudicial ignorance? For the most part, no. And I wouldn't really rally against calling Europeans 'Europeans'- that's their own name for themselves.
Perhaps a more fitting comparison would be the insistence upon calling Europeans either 'Kōmōjin' (for lighter skinned/Northern Europeans), or 'Nanbanjin' (for darker skinned/ Southern Europeans). Would you rally against that? Would you state that Europeans should be 'outraged' (watering down the rhetoric, I'd go with 'mildly indignant' to describe my own stance on this) by the idea of being classified under these over-arching terms by everyone else in the world? Because if this were the case, I would personally be willing to rally against it.
Well Brazil is definitely Latin American. Haiti is sort of, as is Quebec. French is a Latin based language after all. It would be condescending to put people in a group they don't belong to (Inuit are not First Nations, but they are Native. Also they were pretty well never called Indian).
Ignorance yes, but there's a lot of terms used in English today based on ignorance. California was named because it was thought to be an island. A name that came from ignorance can still stick for no good reason and have no real problems.
Considering Europeans traditionally divided themselves between North and South most would probably have no issue what so ever.
Problem was people in the US had already long been called "Americans" by that point, so that one probably wouldn't work.
Personally I think the "Indian" misnomer is annoying, but it's far too late to do much about it now, and I'm no expert, but from what I've heard "Indian" is mostly what the tribes today call themselves (other than their actual tribe name of course, which is what they'd prefer people call them) and "Native American" is mainly most popular with white liberals. If they themselves prefer to be called Indians, then I'm not going to treat the word like it's offensive.
I don't know. I use the terms interchangeably. If I'm offending anyone, I hope they set me straight.
The key here, I think you point in the same direction, is that "european" is a bad example to compare. European is an endogenous term that we europeans have crarted to define ourselves, so we, or our forefathers, have decided who we are, how we are defined (more or less) etc. That's not the case for other groups, like american natives, indians...Of course, being labeled in a certain way and put down as an implication of that label creates a resistance that often is driven through that imposed identity, giving that identity a new meaning etc...but still that experience is far beyond the needs faced by the european identity.
Also, nitpicking, but terms like hispanic have not the same meaning outside North-America. Technically an Haitian, a brazilian or a peruvian are all latin-american (term coined by the french during their mexican adventure. So, of course it includes Haiti and Quebef). A brazilian and a peruvian are both iberoamerican (though not an haitian). A peruvian is also hispanoamerican...In that regard, the idea of "Nuestra América" (Our America) is not exactly new
I would say that the most important self differentiation amongst of europeans, in cultural and historical terms, is between east and west...Also, if that south-north divide means that I'm closer to an albanian than to a french (as I see in some "classifications" in this board) then I call it bullshit, because it's obviously false. Nothing against albanians, but again the east-west divide weights (and obvious cultural and lingüistical factors) Certainly, being labeled from outside is not funny...
Well, that is just as misleading a term.
By the way, I always have wondered why they called it the West Indies. First of all, if Colombus really had come as far as Asia, he would first have arrived to China. And if he somehow had missed China for instance by being to far to the south, he would first have arrived to the eastern parts of India. It seems like they have made a logical mistake and called it the west Indies because they sailed to the west. Maybe they still hadn´t got totally used to the idea that the world was round...
By the way, since someone seems to think that I have said that it is offensive to call native Americans "Indians", I have not said so. I repeat what I wrote earlier: 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".
It is not a question of being offensive to the native Americans, but to the "real" Indians, ie. the people from India. It is confusing as well. But, if the native Americans prefer the term "Indian" over other terms, I think they might be allowed to keep that name. But to avoid confusion an adjective may be added, like say 'Amerindian'. Though inside India proper other names like Bharat or Hindustan are used for the country, in foreign countries in Europe or Americas, the name "India", being familiar cannot be easily replaced. Hence the requirement of a term like "Amerindian", for the native people of the Americas.
Yes, Amerindian is better, I think, also better than "Native Americans", which is a bit of a mouthful. It is better with a single-word term.
I think it is problematic to say that the term "Indian" should be insulting to either of the groups, as it seems to imply that it is degrading to be a part of the other group. My objection is just that it is misleading. It would be most correct to use the term "Indian" for people coming from India.
I think it is problematic to say that the term "Indian" should be insulting to either of the groups, as it seems to imply that it is degrading to be a part of the other group. My objection is just that it is misleading. It would be most correct to use the term "Indian" for people coming from India.