Is the term 'Native American' PC?

[patrick1]

The differentiation issue can easily be solved with a brief follow-up question.  Dot or feather? for the un-PC crowd or Indian from India followed by the more precise respone.  It's all semantics and splitting hairs makes it even more comlicated.     

[patrick1]

Oh, and free Leonard Peltier!
[/quote]

LOL, I used to hang at an IRA friendly bar that had a poster saying just that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Maybe it's different elsewhere, but I personally have never known any Indians who were offended at American Indians being called simply "Indians," nor have I known anyone stupid enough to not be able to tell the difference.

OK, here's an example, I was once at a strip club with a drunk as hell friend when a black stripper came on stage and he started talking about how he's had sex with a girl of every race except a black one (which is not true, he was just being a drunk ass). Later I was talking with another friend about that comment and saying he was obviously not telling the truth plus the only races he mentioned were white, Asian and Mexican. I said "I doubt he's screwed any Native Americans", the other guy agreed, I then said Polynesians, he said yes, then I said Indians and he said "You already said that", requiring me to clarify the country India.

So yes, confusion does happen. And like I've said before here, having an Indian-American friend in high school, I can certainly tell you some people are very stupid.

[J-Mann]

OK, here's an example, I was once at a strip club with a drunk as hell friend when a black stripper came on stage and he started talking about how he's had sex with a girl of every race except a black one (which is not true, he was just being a drunk ass). Later I was talking with another friend about that comment and saying he was obviously not telling the truth plus the only races he mentioned were white, Asian and Mexican. I said "I doubt he's screwed any Native Americans", the other guy agreed, I then said Polynesians, he said yes, then I said Indians and he said "You already said that", requiring me to clarify the country India.

I'm not sure a drunken mix-up in a strip club qualifies as a reason to change 500 years worth of linguistic tradition, but I suppose I see your point.  I'll have to disagree, though.

Some people are very stupid.

No argument here...

[minionofmidas]

They are called "Indian" because the land columbus discovered was called "the west indies".

Do the Sioux, Cherokee or Navajo live in the West Indies?

No, and the Lakota don't like to be called the Sioux.

And why shouls they? I wouldnt want to be called 'the enemy' either.

It doesn't mean that.
Actually it doesn't really mean anything, given it's rather weird etymology.

are you sure? I heard that it meant enemy in The Crow indian language. thats what they taought us in school. (not that thats a valid resource. )

That is incorrect.
Sioux is shortened from Nadoouessioux (or Nahdowesyuh if you want to be able to pronounce it) which is a French spelling rendering, with a French plural suffix, of Nadowessi (sg), which in different Algonquin languages is the name for different non-Algonquin people and etymologically just means "someone speaking incomprehensibly" - just like Greek "Barbaros" and Slavic "Nemec" (meaning: German), btw.
In Ojibwa (I think it was Ojibwa, don't nail me on this) it's also used as the name for a certain smallish species of rattler. The snake got named for the Dakota though, not the other way round. Although either way it's hardly a compliment.

[minionofmidas]

BRTD, what was the name of Leonard Peltier's group?>> AIM- The American Indian Movement. Even this most strident group out there has used the "Indian" appelation.  While we are at it maybe we should change the name of the Black Panther party to the African American Panter party.   

Although of course, AIM was a) founded 45 years ago and b) is one of those "speaking acronyms" - you know, "aim" - so it doesn't make a good argument.
A better one is AIRPA, the American Indian Registry of Performing Artists, a much newer organisation.
Oh, and free Leonard Peltier.

[MODU]

I prefer to call the tribes by their names, not "American Indians."  It is like saying everyone that lives in North and South America "Americans."  We are unique countries, just as the tribes in Northern America before the colonists came.  Now, I too get sucked into the trap of using the term Indian or Native American, but I would choose to use their proper tribal name if known at the time of discussion.

[minionofmidas]

Actually, that "they're unique tribes" argument is not as clearcut as people make it sound here - it's accurate in some areas but not at all in others, plus these days loads of more or less full-blood Natives are still not anywhere close to full-blood members of any individual tribe - but never mind all that.

[J-Mann]

I prefer to call the tribes by their names, not "American Indians."  It is like saying everyone that lives in North and South America "Americans."  We are unique countries, just as the tribes in Northern America before the colonists came.  Now, I too get sucked into the trap of using the term Indian or Native American, but I would choose to use their proper tribal name if known at the time of discussion.

This is my preferred method.  However, you could easily argue that calling white people "white" cheapens their ethnic diversity and robs them of their ancestry, but we do it for general purposes anyway.  The same goes for Indians, or Native Americans, or American Indians, or whatever you want to call them.  We have a blanket name so as to speak in generalities about them.

Knowing that someone is a Kiowa and addressing them as such is great.  Being afraid to call them "American Indian" because you don't know their tribe, however, is ludicrous.  We can get caught up in the whole cultural sensitivity thing much too easily.

[phk]

Its more along the lines of who has priority to call themselves "Indian".

People from "India" or "Native American tribes".

[MODU]

Its more along the lines of who has priority to call themselves "Indian".

People from "India" or "Native American tribes".

If they both want to be called "Indian," how can we say "Uh, no you're not.  Accept our label and live with it?" 

[phk]

Its more along the lines of who has priority to call themselves "Indian".

People from "India" or "Native American tribes".

If they both want to be called "Indian," how can we say "Uh, no you're not.  Accept our label and live with it?" 

Yes but in todays, internationalized world; confusion comes up. Unless every Indian reservation is annexed by India.

[MODU]

Its more along the lines of who has priority to call themselves "Indian".

People from "India" or "Native American tribes".

If they both want to be called "Indian," how can we say "Uh, no you're not.  Accept our label and live with it?" 

Yes but in todays, internationalized world; confusion comes up. Unless every Indian reservation is annexed by India.

That is why I used the "American" term earlier.  While the US seems to have the marketing rights on the name, some Central and Souther American nations also tend to use the term (though more in a geographical reference than naitonal identity). 

Of course, I get annoyed with the African-American, Irish-American, Japanese-American, etc tags as well.  If you are a citizen of the USA, then you are "American" (again, under the assumption that the US has the rights to that name).  The only ones who have a right to a secondary title would Native Americans since they have special status within the country (which leads us back to the beginning of the debate).

[J-Mann]

Yes but in todays, internationalized world; confusion comes up. Unless every Indian reservation is annexed by India.

Really, I don't think the confusion that you guys are claiming exists really does.  Alright, so there's the occassional idiot like BRTD's strip club buddy who gets drunk and mistakenly thinks Indians (from India) and American Indians are one in the same.  No harm, no foul.  It's not a big deal.  No international incident was caused.  Move on.

Besides in the United States and a few pockets in Central and Southern America, how often do American Indians really crop up in international affairs?  I'd say that India is the major player on the international scene, from politics to economics and trade to military affairs -- not the Kiowa or Sioux or Comanche.  The "internationalized world" is by-and-large oblivious to the very existence of these tribes; why change our linguistic traditions in an attempt to offer them less confusion when they don't care in the first place?

[minionofmidas]

Its more along the lines of who has priority to call themselves "Indian".

People from "India" or "Native American tribes".

If they both want to be called "Indian," how can we say "Uh, no you're not.  Accept our label and live with it?" 

Yes but in todays, internationalized world; confusion comes up. Unless every Indian reservation is annexed by India.

I could live with that.

[Gabu]

Yes but in todays, internationalized world; confusion comes up. Unless every Indian reservation is annexed by India.

Really, I don't think the confusion that you guys are claiming exists really does.

It doesn't?  I've run into it many times; every single time someone talks about "Indians", I immediately have to clarify if they mean guys from India or Native Americans.

[Defarge]

If it isn't, what will we call them?

[patrick1]

Yes but in todays, internationalized world; confusion comes up. Unless every Indian reservation is annexed by India.

Really, I don't think the confusion that you guys are claiming exists really does.

It doesn't?  I've run into it many times; every single time someone talks about "Indians", I immediately have to clarify if they mean guys from India or Native Americans.

And how long does it take to clear up the confusion?  10 seconds?

[nclib]

Yes. And, of course, using the term "Indian" makes differentiating between Native Americans and people from India difficult.

[Gabu]

Yes but in todays, internationalized world; confusion comes up. Unless every Indian reservation is annexed by India.

Really, I don't think the confusion that you guys are claiming exists really does.

It doesn't?  I've run into it many times; every single time someone talks about "Indians", I immediately have to clarify if they mean guys from India or Native Americans.

And how long does it take to clear up the confusion?  10 seconds?

Longer than it would take if we stopped using a dumb word for Native Americans that was the result of a misconception a few hundred years ago.

[A18]

I prefer the term 'savage.' That way you don't mix it up with actual native Americans.