4 ms·

"Indians".. really?

by floopidydoopidy 11y ago

"Indians".. really?

TeMPOraL 11y ago
That's how, well, everyone outside US calls them?
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  It's also how they were called inside the US at the time.
  - hittaruki 11y ago
    Except I as an Indian (as in from Republic of India), thought this was about English in India. I was totally surprised!
    - stuxnet79 11y ago
      Same here. Not surprised though. Here in North America, you will generally find the terminology inadequate and confusing. This is how I have it figured (for Canada / GTA area specifically): Indian = Native American Asian = East Asian Brown = South Asian / West Indian Black = African, West Indian / AA (African American)
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        In Poland it works the same. And also: Hindu = Indian (i.e. a person from India)
        DrScump 11y ago
        Indian Buddhists, Jain, Muslims, etc. must love that.
    - floopidydoopidy 11y ago
      I thought it was going to be an interesting perspective article about the Indians who supported and profited from British rule of India.
- PeterWhittaker 11y ago
  Uh, nope. We tend to use aboriginal in Canada, or to actually refer to a people by name, e.g., Dene, Cree, Métis, Inuit; we used to use Indian, but it's inaccurate and often considered offensive. Note: Aboriginal includes First Nations (what used to be called Indian, or native), Métis, and Inuit, so is the best, most comprehensive term.
- MLR 11y ago
  In Britain we'd probably go with Native American in a formal context, American Indian might be used but probably isn't as common anymore I'd say, Red Indian would be understood as well but it's a bit dated, I assume that would be considered an offensive term in the US though. So while we use/understand the term (American) Indians, Indian by itself would be considered to refer to people from India.
actsasbuffoon 11y ago
It differs from person to person, but I'm not really offended by the term. My tribe still calls their reservation Indian Island, so I don't think I'm alone. The only problem I have with the term is that it's slightly confusing, as it's not clear if you're referring to people from India.
- jordan0day 11y ago
  What about the term "American Indian"? I feel like that would be useful in headlines to set the context, so that then everyone knows which "Indian" is being referred to.
  - mreiland 11y ago
    American Indian also includes native populations from both Canada, Mexico, and arguably South America. The only term that avoids all confusion is the term "Native American". It technically has the same connotations as "American Indian", but in common use it's understood to mean the Natives in the areas of the United States. This is why actasasabuffoon stated he wasn't offended by the term 'Indian', there are some who insist on using the term 'Native American' and get offended when referred to as 'Indian'. He was pointing out he's not among those who get offended by the term and generally the only times he feels the differentiation matters is when you're clarifying 'Indian' or 'Native American'. Of course the term 'American Indian' is also good enough to clarify, but if we're talking about using terms in titles then 'Native American' is really the best term to use if you're unable to provide context in the title itself.
    - DrScump 11y ago
      The only term that avoids all confusion is the term "Native American" The Canadians use "First Peoples", which is arguably better.
      - mreiland 11y ago
        interesting, I had never heard that term before.
mitchtbaum 11y ago
We could call them what they called themselves, Wôpanâak(0). It would provide moral and spiritual support to their descendants, relatives, and foster cultures(3) who revive their Algonquian language(1)(4). We can even find more ways to clean up our misconceptions and perceive humanity's many worlds more accurately(2). To their credit, that land supports a lot of life. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampanoag_people#Tisquantum_.28or_Squanto.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampanoag_people#Tisquantum_.2... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algonquian_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algonquian_languages 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym_and_endonym https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym_and_endonym 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation 4: http://www.wlrp.org/ http://www.wlrp.org/ (some words below) Pumpkin: Pôhpukun (ponh-pu-kun) = ‘grows forth round’ Moccasin: Mahkus (mah-kus) = ‘Covers the whole foot’ Moose: M8s (moos) = ‘moose’ Powwow: Pawâw (pa-waaw) = ‘s/he is healing/heals (someone)’ Massachusetts: Mâsach8sut (maa-sa-choo-sut) = Place of the foothill. This was probably referring to the Blue Hills

"Indians".. really?

TeMPOraL 11y ago

That's how, well, everyone outside US calls them?

fennecfoxen 11y ago
It's also how they were called inside the US at the time.
- hittaruki 11y ago
  Except I as an Indian (as in from Republic of India), thought this was about English in India. I was totally surprised!
  - stuxnet79 11y ago
    Same here. Not surprised though. Here in North America, you will generally find the terminology inadequate and confusing. This is how I have it figured (for Canada / GTA area specifically): Indian = Native American Asian = East Asian Brown = South Asian / West Indian Black = African, West Indian / AA (African American)
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      In Poland it works the same. And also: Hindu = Indian (i.e. a person from India)
      - DrScump 11y ago
        Indian Buddhists, Jain, Muslims, etc. must love that.
  - floopidydoopidy 11y ago
    I thought it was going to be an interesting perspective article about the Indians who supported and profited from British rule of India.
PeterWhittaker 11y ago
Uh, nope. We tend to use aboriginal in Canada, or to actually refer to a people by name, e.g., Dene, Cree, Métis, Inuit; we used to use Indian, but it's inaccurate and often considered offensive. Note: Aboriginal includes First Nations (what used to be called Indian, or native), Métis, and Inuit, so is the best, most comprehensive term.
MLR 11y ago
In Britain we'd probably go with Native American in a formal context, American Indian might be used but probably isn't as common anymore I'd say, Red Indian would be understood as well but it's a bit dated, I assume that would be considered an offensive term in the US though. So while we use/understand the term (American) Indians, Indian by itself would be considered to refer to people from India.

actsasbuffoon 11y ago

It differs from person to person, but I'm not really offended by the term. My tribe still calls their reservation Indian Island, so I don't think I'm alone. The only problem I have with the term is that it's slightly confusing, as it's not clear if you're referring to people from India.

jordan0day 11y ago
What about the term "American Indian"? I feel like that would be useful in headlines to set the context, so that then everyone knows which "Indian" is being referred to.
- mreiland 11y ago
  American Indian also includes native populations from both Canada, Mexico, and arguably South America. The only term that avoids all confusion is the term "Native American". It technically has the same connotations as "American Indian", but in common use it's understood to mean the Natives in the areas of the United States. This is why actasasabuffoon stated he wasn't offended by the term 'Indian', there are some who insist on using the term 'Native American' and get offended when referred to as 'Indian'. He was pointing out he's not among those who get offended by the term and generally the only times he feels the differentiation matters is when you're clarifying 'Indian' or 'Native American'. Of course the term 'American Indian' is also good enough to clarify, but if we're talking about using terms in titles then 'Native American' is really the best term to use if you're unable to provide context in the title itself.
  - DrScump 11y ago
    The only term that avoids all confusion is the term "Native American" The Canadians use "First Peoples", which is arguably better.
    - mreiland 11y ago
      interesting, I had never heard that term before.

mitchtbaum 11y ago

We could call them what they called themselves, Wôpanâak(0). It would provide moral and spiritual support to their descendants, relatives, and foster cultures(3) who revive their Algonquian language(1)(4). We can even find more ways to clean up our misconceptions and perceive humanity's many worlds more accurately(2). To their credit, that land supports a lot of life. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampanoag_people#Tisquantum_.28or_Squanto.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampanoag_people#Tisquantum_.2... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algonquian_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algonquian_languages 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym_and_endonym https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym_and_endonym 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation 4: http://www.wlrp.org/ http://www.wlrp.org/ (some words below) Pumpkin: Pôhpukun (ponh-pu-kun) = ‘grows forth round’ Moccasin: Mahkus (mah-kus) = ‘Covers the whole foot’ Moose: M8s (moos) = ‘moose’ Powwow: Pawâw (pa-waaw) = ‘s/he is healing/heals (someone)’ Massachusetts: Mâsach8sut (maa-sa-choo-sut) = Place of the foothill. This was probably referring to the Blue Hills