The Native American name controversy is an ongoing dispute over the acceptable ways to refer to the indigenous peoples of the Americas and to broad subsets thereof, such as those living in a specific country or sharing certain cultural attributes. (The naming of individual ethnic groups, such as the Navajo, the Haida, or the Yanomami, is discussed in their respective articles.)
Many English terms have been used or considered for such purposes, such as American Indians (or simply Indians), Native Americans, First Nations, Indigenous Peoples of America, Amerindians, Amerinds, and more. However, none have found universal acceptance. Typical reasons for contesting a name are:
In some countries, certain broad names have been defined by law, such as First Nations and Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. Even in those cases, there may be lingering debates on whether certain groups fit the legal definition or not, or whether the name or its definition are adequate.
Unfortunately, this principle applies poorly to large multi-ethnic groups, since different sub-groups often have incompatible preferences. Moreover, every natural language has traditionally ignored this principle, exerting its privilege to invent its own ethnic terms for other peoples. English is no exception, and uses German, Dutch, and Albanian, disregarding the self-appellations and preferences of those subjects. Not surprisingly, English names for the pre-Columbian Americans are largely assigned by tradition, and are not always accepted by the peoples themselves.
Some believe that the name has fallen out of use in the dominant culture of the West in the last few decades; partly because it belongs naturally to the peoples or nationals of India, and so its other use was inherently ambiguous. Other reasons, specific to North America, are discussed in a later section. All this said, however, the terms "Indian" and "American Indian" are used by the U.S. government as the standard decriptors. There is a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), for example, rather than a Bureau of Native American Affairs. Similarly, the Smithsonian's new National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, DC, uses the older term, as does its quarterly full-color publication, American Indian.
However, the proper meaning of "native" is "born in", and thus the term native American or native of the Americas could be equally applicable to anyone born in the Americas or in United States. The word probably acquired the other (ethno-historical) sense in the early years of European naval exploration and colonial expansion, when the "natives" — the people "born in" the foreign countries — were indeed non-Europeans.
Expressions such as native-born may be used to further qualify that the intended meaning is the common one (i.e., "born in or originating from a given place"), and not the formal, specific designation (i.e., "Native" in the sense of belonging to an identified indigenous group), if the context does not otherwise make this distinction clear.
Furthermore, in the United States the expression Native American has acquired a specific technical and legal meaning, which is discussed in a later section. In principle this narrower sense is indicated by capitalizing the word native. However, one must be aware that this typographical detail is easily lost on readers, and of course ineffective in speech.
The word native is also problematic because of its political implications, since "native" ethnic groups sometimes claim to have more rights — to natural resources, political offices, indemnities, cultural prestige, etc. — than the "non-native" groups who arrived later; the implication being that the "non-natives" are "aliens", "foreigners", "usurpers", etc. — even if their ancestors have lived in the place for many generations.
Such claims (or the possibility thereof) may lead to rejection of the label by the "non-natives". These may argue, e.g., that the "natives" themselves were invaders to even earlier inhabitants; or that they are no longer residing on their "native" land; or that there is insufficient historical evidence of their native status; and so on. The issue boils down to the undecidable question of how long a group should reside in a place before it deserves the label "native". This reaction has actually occurred in the US, for example, against the term Native Americans.
Indigenous in the strict sense means typically found, living, or originating in a specific place. Thus, Italians are indigenous to Italy.
According to this etymology, therefore, it could be used for ethnic groups who "were there since the beginning", i.e. the first to arrive in a region, or those who can be identified the earliest historical or archaeological records. Indeed, it has been occasionally used in this sense in English, at least 19th century, for indigenous populations all over the world, including the Americas.
Aboriginal may imply a more direct or ancient link to the past (especially one that predates recorded history) than indigenous, but there is considerable overlap in meaning between the two terms.
However, this general use has been largely preempted by narrower legal or common usage definitions that it has received in some countries. Throughout most of the English-speaking world, it is commonly understood to refer to the Indigenous Australians. It has also special legal status in Canada (see below).
In the United States, Native American and American Indian are commonly used to denote the indigenous peoples in the United States. Both terms are almost exclusively used to describe the natives of the continental United States, usually excluding the indigenous peoples of Hawaii and the Aleut, Inuit, and Yupik peoples of the far north.
The terms Alaska Natives is used for the indigenous peoples in Alaska (including the Inuit, Yupik, and Aleut), and Native Hawaiians is used for those of Hawaii.
For that reason, non-Natives have generally avoided it since the 1980s. On the other hand, according to a recent survey, many Natives actually prefer Indian or American Indian to Native Americans, and use the three terms interchangeably *.
The term American Indian is often shortened to Indian when the context allows, e.g. in the name of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The phrase Native American, intended in this sense, is usually capitalized, in order to reduce confusion with the common sense of native ("someone who is born in a place").
The name has been contested by some non-Native US citizens, especially in the 1970s and 1980s; both for the perception that the name diminished their own status or rights, and also as part of the general backlash against "political correctness", for which the term was often cited as an example
The term is sometimes used to refer to all indigenous peoples of all of the Americas, including the US and Canada but sometimes not including Mexico or further south. However, people from those countries, especially from Canada, object to this usage as incorrect, or even somewhat "imperialistic".
Some American Indians in the U.S. have misgivings about the term Native American. For instance, Russell Means, a famous American Indian activist, opposes the term because he believes it was imposed by the government without the consent of American Indians *. Furthermore, some American Indians question the term Native American because, they argue, it serves to ease the conscience of "white America" with regard to past injustices done to American Indians by effectively eliminating "Indians" from the present.
Another objection that has been raised to this term is that it seems to imply that the other indigenous peoples of (or in) the United States which are excluded from its scope, such as those of Hawaii and the Aleut, Inuit, and Yupik, are not "natives" to the Continent. In the same context, Inuit are not "Indian", nor are the mixed-race but legally aboriginal Metis people of Canada.
Eskimos was once used for those groups, but this term is in disfavor because it is perceived by many of them as derogatory. This is further complicated by the fact that the term Inuit is sometimes used to refer to any of the groups, leading non-Inuits (particularly amongst the Yupik peoples) to actually prefer Eskimo, comparatively speaking.
In Canada, the term Aboriginal peoples in Canada is used for all indigenous peoples established in the country, including the Inuit and Inuvialuit, as well as the Métis. The usual U.S. usage is "Native American" or "Indian".
The term First Nations is used in a more restricted sense, for all the indigenous peoples in Canada except the Inuit, Inuvialuit, and Métis.
However, some tribal governments of Canada also use the term First Nations to refer to any indigenous, tribal or nomadic society. In this usage, the Roma, Sinti, Saami, Maori, Hmong, and the Australian Aborigines are also considered "First Nations".
The Canadian Indian Act, which defines the rights of recognized First Nations, does refer to them as Indians. The federal government department in charge of First Nations affairs is the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs headed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. People officially recognized by the Indian Register under that act are commonly known as "Status Indians", although "Registered Indian" is the official term. Land set aside for the use of First Nations are known as Indian reserves.
The term Indian is also used in the official names of many First Nations governments.
The term is also used in the U.S., though much less frequently. It is occasionally used in the UK The term Aborigines is not used in Canada to refer to indigenous American peoples.
The alternative term Indigenous Peoples (or Tribes, or Nations) has been used as equivalent to Aboriginal Peoples.
The term indien or indienne is used in the legislation, although the preferred term is now amérindien. The term indigène is not used as it is seen as having negative connotations because of its similarity to the French equivalent of "indigent", i.e. "lazy". The old French term sauvage (meaning "wild") is no longer used either, as it is considered racist.
The Chinook Jargon, the old trade language of the Pacific Northwest, uses siwash - an adaptation of the French sauvage - to mean Indian/Native American/First Nation, either as adjective or noun. While normally meaning a male native, it is used in certain combinations, e.g. siwash cosho - meaning a seal, but literally "Indian pig/pork".
Like sauvage, siwash has come to have negative connotations in many native communities, while it remains in common parlance in others. When used by non-natives it is considered entirely derogatory except in placenames and certain other usages. In the creolized form of Chinook Jargon spoken at the Grand Ronde Agency in Oregon, a distinction is made between siwash and sawash. The accent in the latter is on the second syllable, resembling the French original, and is used in Grand Ronde Jargon with the benign meaning of "anything native/Indian", while siwash is considered defamatory.
The Chinook Jargon term for a native woman is klootchman, an originally Nootkan word which became commonplace in regional English to mean a native woman, or (as in the Jargon), all women and also anything female. Hyas klootchman tyee = "queen", klootchman cosho = "sow", klootchman tenas or tenas klootchman - girl, little girl. Generally when used by itself in regional English klootchman means a native woman only, and did not acquire a derisive context as has siwash or squaw.
In Mexico, Brazil, and several other countries, these names are normally applied only to the ethnic groups that have maintained their identity and, to a some extent, their original way of life. In those countries there is also a large segment of the population with mixed native and European ancestry, who are largely integrated in mainstream society, and no longer identify themselves with their ancestral native groups. These people were originally called mestizos in Mexico, caboclos in Brazil; however, those terms have largely fallen in disuse as they that segment has came to predominate among the population.
In Brazil, Pre-Columbian is often replaced by "Pre-Cabraline" (Pt. pré-cabralinhos), after Cabral who landed in Brazil in 1500.
Still, its precise meaning can be disputed. For example, it is debatable whether it includes the indigenous people of Hawaii and other US territories outside the Americas. While those peoples have no known historical, cultural, or genetic connection with the indigenous peoples of the Americas, from a political and legal viewpoint they should arguably be considered "indigenous peoples" of their respective countries.
Other names that have been used or proposed for the indigenous peoples of both continents include:
However, in scientific circles the term Amerind is often restricted to a subset of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, mostly from South and Central America, Mexico and the Southern United States. The peoples in this group share many genetic and cultural features that set them apart from the Na-Dene peoples, which comprise the majority of the U.S. and southern Canada indigenous peoples, and from the Eskimo peoples in Alaska and the Canadian Artic (Inuit, Yupik, and Aleut). Many anthropologists believe that these Amerind peoples are the descendants of the first immigrant wave from Siberia (15,000–10,000 years ago).
Indigenous peoples of the Americas | Native American | Controversies
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
It uses material from the
"Native American name controversy".
Home Page • arts • business • computers • games • health • hospitals • home • kids & teens • news • physicians • recreation• reference • regional • science • shopping • society • sports • world