Regarding the Term "American Indian"

Post Reply New Topic

You're right, of course, about the Clovis culture.

It is theorized that many people came into America via the Bering Land Bridge during a Glacial Period--about 20,000 years ago. I've also seen 40,000 years ago quoted.

I would say that ice was probably the dominant "material" around the Bering Sea--except for about two months of summer.

OOPS!! LOL For some reason, I was thinking the Vikings got here, BEFORE the "Indians"..... Thanks, for bringing me to my senses----I stand, corrected!

I a thousand percent agree that perpetuating Columbus's 500 year old mistake of calling them "Indians" is ridiculous. They are not from India. So why call them "Indians"?

But strictly speaking "native" American is not exactly correct either because anyone born in the USA, and who is not an immigrant, is a "native American" like me (White), the President (Black), Margaret Cho (Asian), Pat Buchanan, or whomever.

What they really are are "American Aborigines".

But "Indigenous American" is also closer the mark than is "Native American" IMHO.

If I were the Pope of the English Language I would adopt the Franch noun version of the adjective "indigenous", and decree that they should be called "American Indigenes" forever after.

Not only would adopting the term "American Indigene" end the confusion (you would longer have to ask "red dot,or feather?" to know which kind of "Indian" is being spoken of), it would be precise (they are "indigenous" to the Americas, and are not from India, and they are more than just 'native' to America), but it retains some the "Ind" sound of the old word "Indian" (so you wouldn't have to change the initials on their monogramed stationery.Lol!).

It doesn't really matter tho what term you like better tho, its about what the actual people identify with and the majority prefer Indian particularly many in the AIM such as the late Russell Means but of there are some that don't. It really is something that if different from tribe to tribe and the individual. The only problem really is the confusion with people from India, I believe over in the UK they use the term 'South Asian' which might be better since a lot of people you might identify as Indian might be Pakistani or Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan or whatever so it encompasses a larger group.

It would be interesting digging into the etymology of the names of other ethnic groups, is Indian offensive or is it just newer thus something we can readily decipher the origins?

And let's not even talk about how confusing it would be to bring East Indians and West Indians into the mix...

There appear to be some minor inaccuracies in this thread. Admittedly, these inaccuracies are sustained by society as a whole and so no one is really blame. But, their inaccuracies non the less. To begin, the premise of this thread is not true. Christopher Columbus did not call the Indians by the name of indian because he thought he was in India. To further understand this we must first discuss the time period Christopher Columbus lived in. Christopher Columbus was born on October 31st, 1451 and made his famous voyage in the year 1492. The importance of this any student of etymology can explain. You see, the subcontinent of India was still going by the Sanskrit name of Bharat up until roughly the 16th century (the few that chose to call it something else would have called it Hindus or Hindustan). Furthermore, the name India's first recorded usage dates into the 16th century. It was not until later spanish and Portugese Influence that India began to be called India.

So the question becomes why did Christoper Columbus choose to call the Indians Indians?
The short answer, latin (darn latin always contributing to vernacular dilemmas centuries down the road, but I digress). To fully understand the choice of the word, one must look to works that she'd light on this such as “Brevisima relacion de la destruccíon de las Indias", by Bartolome de las Casas, originally published in Seville in 1552.

“Finally, in one word, their Ambition and Avarice, than which the heart of Man never entertained greater, and the vast Wealth of those Regions; the Humility and Patience of the Inhabitants (which made their approach to these Lands more facil and easie) did much promote the business: Whom they so despicably contemned, that they treated them (I speak of things which I was an Eye Witness of, without the least fallacy) not as Beasts, which I cordially wished they would, but as the most abject dung and filth of the Earth; and so solicitous they were of their Life and Soul, that the above-mentioned number of People died without understanding the true Faith or Sacraments. And this also is as really true as the precedent Narration (which the very Tyrants and cruel Murderers cannot deny without the stigma of a lye) that the Spaniards never received any injury from the them, but that they rather reverenced them as Persons descended from Heaven, until that they were compelled to take up Arms, provoked thereunto by repeated Injuries, violent Torments, and unjust Butcheries.”

Now while Christopher Columbus was admittedly Italian sailing on behalf of Spain, would have been familiar with latin considering that (church) latin was the language of the Monarchs, ecclesial orders, and men of science at the time) [the] “People or Children Of God”, as Spaniards often referred to the Indigenous, translates freely as “Los Ninos’ de la Endeo” and consequently, Los Ninos de la Indios” [ more-literally “children of God”];

From this the Spanish were able to warp the latin "Indios" ultimately into indian.


Sorry to be so long winded, but having done a lot of research into this I feel like I barely said anything