This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

For more detail on why this article exists, see the discussion at Talk:Native Americans. - Harmil 23:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

When I first wrote, " North America", in the lead paragraph I did mean to include Mexico, as some comments on Talk:Native Americans and other sources had lead me to think that the term "Native American" might be more common than I thought there. However, on doing more research on WP and other sites, I found that indeed the Mexican terminology (even when writing in English) is primarily Spanish, so the recent edit is correct in retrospect, thanks for fixing my gaff. - Harmil 23:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

We edit conflicted. I was coming here in the hope of getting just such a clarification and offering apologies if I'd misconstrued something. All's well with the world, then. Further comment: "However, the term Native American may still be used when speaking or writing in English outside of North America" -- I'm still not sure what that phrase is doing. "May" sounds a little proscriptive, and is it trying to say "may still be used to refer to Amerinds (for want of a better term) from all over the Americas"? –Hajor 00:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It's saying just what it's saying. More research would be needed to be sure just what I meant there ;).

Seriously, I was basing that on some scraps of info from Talk:Native Americans, where someone had cited a Mexican professor, and I think Guatamalan source who used the term "Native American" to refer to their local natives. But, it's hard to say if this is the norm, since the vast majority of the time, English is not used to refer to the natives in those countries, so when it is used, the author is probably basing their terminology on some external (probably U.S. or Canadian) peer group. I want to be clear, though that I'm a U.S. citizen who has very little clue, only what research I was able to do on the Net, and the benefit of the existing text from Native Americans and Indigenous peoples of the Americas, which I borrowed from heavily in the assumption that those sources would be parred down once this page existed.... - Harmil 11:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Forgetting all of this, I then went and edited it back... sigh, some days I wish I had a brain. Still, I think the new wording has some merit. Any concerns? If there are, we can put it back, but that brings the Mexico section into question, perhaps as it should be. - Harmil 12:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

If one were to sail "around" the Cape of Good Hope, they would soon run aground on the shores of Falsche Bay. The Cape of Good Hope is not the southern-most point of Africa, and this article's saying so perpetuates a widely percieved falacy. Corrected.

I know that this is an ancient comment, and that the person who put it here is likely not going to respond, but I thought I'd make the point anyway. There are two meanings of "Cape of Good Hope". The first is the current place name, which is correctly not the southernmost point in Africa. However, there is also the historical usage in terms of navigation, and in that sense, the Cape of Good Hope is very much the southernmost part of Africa, not a specific place. Hence, historically European sailors would refer to sailing "round the Cape of Good Hope" when refering to a journey to the Indian Ocean from the Atlantic Ocean. It's not a mistake, therefore to refer to such journeys in that way, though it is ambiguous, and should be clarified in modern references (I should have done so, sorry). - Harmil 12:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A large number of changes were made by Jorge Stolfi, some of which do not seem to have been well thought out. For example, there some grammar problems such as:

A more serious difficulty with this term is that several ethnic groups traditionally excluded from the American Indians were just as "native" to the Americas as them.

Which is to say that "them" is quite ambiguous. Also, there are some "constroversies" which I've never heard of any controversy surrounding ("of" vs. "in") that could use some citations. Generally, such major structural changes are better brought to the talk page first. I won't simply revert the changes, but I will leave a note on his user page and ask for a response. - Harmil 12:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry for not discussing first. However the purpose of my changes is just to reorganize the material, remove duplication, etc.; not to change the contents. Unfortunately, changes of that kind (which must be done once in a while) take much longer to explain than to do, and are impossible to evaluate without seeing the final result. In fact I myself did not know exactly what layout I wanted, it just evolved as I worked.

As for that phrase, I believe it was in the original article; if the error is mine, it was an accident. If I don get there first, feel free to correct it.

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I share a few misgivings re the content of these recent edits, although I think Jorge's reorg. and restructuring is a little clearer in presentation. Unfortunately, several of the rewritten passages now read more like a personal assessment on the matter, rather than a summation of external, generally-held views. There also seems to be inclusion of some 'controversy' points which AFAIK have only been discussed within the wikipedia editorship, the "in vs of" being a case in point: I believe this is a reference to the category renames which were done from "indigenous/native peoples of <country>" to "...in <country>". I don't doubt these have been inadvertant, but the contents need to be rechecked with the original (and also cited material found) as it seems to me at least that some of the explanations and meanings have become indistinct. The explanation re "native/indigenous" having a formal, politically-recognised sense in addition to a general one now seems to be lost. However, reverting back to before the changes began might not be the way to go- I think it can be worked on within the current structure to arrive at some improved consensus version.-- cjllw | TALK 04:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To what three continents does this section refer? I only count two (North America and South America). Cparker 17:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, in my school days I was taught that there was a Central America too. That was defined as all the countries between Mexico (part of N.A.) and Venezuela (part of S.A.). Is that no longer the case? (Of course those are just arbitrary labels anyway). All the best, Jorge Stolfi 17:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Central America is not its own continent in the least, although much of Central America is located on the Caribbean Plate.

Er, OK. I guess that US geographers have different dogmas than Brazilian ones 8-) I will fix that. Jorge Stolfi 06:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jorge, you seem to have done quite a bit more than just copyedit this document. Could you please either back out your changes or rectify the problems that I and Cparker have pointed out? - Harmil 22:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope that the problems can be fixed without reverting everything. By the way, please note that I have no axe to grind on this issue. The mistakes I made were not attempts to impose my personal opinions on the matter, but rather the consequence of not understanding the original text; so I canot accept all the blame for them. (In fact, last year I did a lot or cleanup on this article when it was still a section of the "indigenous peoples of the Americas", and it seems that my edits were generally accepted. If even with that background I failed to get the sense of some paragraph, perhaps it is because that point neededed more explaining.)

The "in"/"of" issue, for example, is a subtle point that readers like me will have trouble noticing, much less understanding, if it is not explained somewhere in the article. Jorge Stolfi 06:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jorge, I too hope that the concerns can be addressed without major reversion, and readily accept that you've no POV to push here. I've already gone ahead (hopefully not too precipitiously) and deleted the "in/of" section though, before noticing your comment above. AFAIK the niceties of this distinction arose among wikipedia editors ourselves, when discussing the renaming of categories and articles. I'm not sure there is a general or notable debate in the wider public arena which could easily be encapsulated and summarised for the article. Perhaps there is though, and if so it can be re-added.-- cjllw | TALK 07:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, I realize this is a bit out of protocol, but would anyone mind taking a look at the Talk:Squamish, British Columbia#Indian v. First nation discussion. It is a dispute about name useage (i.e. the topic of this article), and seems to be limited to myself and another user, and outside perspectives might be useful. Many thanks, -- Hansnesse 05:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the use of the word "controversy" in the title of this article overstates the matter somewhat. Terminology to describe "Native Americans" can be problematic, and some terms that are liked by some are disliked by others, but "controversy" suggests a more intense debate than there appears to be. A long-winded version of the title would be something like: "Terms used to describe the indigenous peoples of the Americas", but I'm sure someone can come up with a short and snappy version. -- Kevin Myers 17:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

You might want to re-check. Here's a quote for you:

I hate the word Native American. Its a government term, which was created in the year 1970 in the Department of the Interior, a generic term that describes all the prisoners of the United States of America. Those of us who are forced to live on trust territories, the Micronesians, the original Hawaiians, the Aleuts, the Inupiates, the Upics, who are erroneously called Eskimos, and all of the 500 nations of the American Indians are so-called "Native Americans." I refuse to be defined by a government, any government; so I am an Indian. Because I know where that came from, a bastardization of two Spanish words: In Dios, "in with god." And Columbus wrote la gente indio, "a people in with God;" so I much prefer to be called Indian rather than Native American. -American Indian activist, Russell Means [1]

There is deep controversy about the orign, meaning, scope, intent and appropriateness of the word. I'm not completely opposed to a page move, but if it's because you don't feel that there is a controversy, then I'd have to disagree. - Harmil 21:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to give that Russell Means quote to me, since I'm the one who first linked to it in the main "Native American" article. Nevertheless, Means is a politically a marginal figure and certainly does not speak for most American Indians on this subject: as the oft-cited poll has shown, and as editorials by various American Indian writers have claimed, most American Indians are comfortable with "Native American." Most anything is probably controversial to somebody somewhere, but to proclaim in the title of this article that the term "Native American" is controversial misleads readers about the scope of the debate. True, it is controversial to a small circle of people, and we can certainly write about that controversy within this article, but the controversy is clearly not the focus or intent of this article, which is about terminology. -- Kevin Myers 07:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond. You have a term that was created because the previous term was deemed too controversial (being the name of a completely other people, and also being the name of a mostly fictional people invented by the Western genre movies of the mid-20th century); the new term is reviled by a few, accepted by most, but still the less commonly used of the two; and the choice between the two terms is brought up on news shows all the time (NPR, speaking to a southern U.S. tribal leader about casinos detoured for a good 2 minutes on the topic in a recent interview, just as a random example). How can I defend the idea that something is controvercial if that's not a sufficient definition?

Certainly, there's less controversy than there is for the mascot issue. Certainly less than there is over U.S. foreign policy. But there is still substantial controversy. A few more quotes:

• "I even hesitate to use the term "Native American," since it implies that we are Native citizens of a colonialist power that conquered and divided the original nations in this continent (none of whom were "American"), but that's another discussion." -Marge Bruchac [2]
• "Sherman has no problem proclaiming himself a "Spokane and Coeur d'Alene Indian" writer. Native American to him is a term used by guilt-ridden white people." -Irene Huangyi Lin on her interview with Sherman Alexie [3]
• "Perhaps the best course is to refer to a People by the name they take for themselves. Sometimes this means using a word that means "we are the only true people," but at least it does not mean using a word that means "you are who others say you are."" -American Indians - Native Americans / A Note on Terminology [4]

I think naming the page "Native American name fist-fight-waiting-to-happen" would have been hyperbolic, but there can be no doubt that this is a controversial topic for which there is only grudging consensus with highly radical fringes. Also keep in mind that the name wash much more controversial in the 1970s and 1980s, and Wikipedia exists to provide historical as well as current information. I'll add a note to that effect in the article. - Harmil 12:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

How much of this article is actually about a "controversy"? Only a portion—most of it is about naming conventions—which is why the article is mislabeled. And I think that your assertion above that "Native American" was created "because the previous term was deemed too controversial" is suspect. But since I've said the exact same thing three times now, I guess I'm just rambling. Good luck with the article. -- Kevin Myers 23:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of cruft that this article has accumulated since my original version. Sadly, this is a — I hate to say it, given our discussion, but — controversial topic, and everyone who sees it wants to make sure that their pet naming scheme is appropriately represented. It's a bit like telling the guy who wrote an article called "Frog" that his article is mis-named because everyone has come along and written about toads. That doesn't mitigate the fact that frogs actually need an article. In this case, the article serves to examine the long-standing controversy around the name, and yes the general consensus is that the term was introduced because "Indian" was seen as pejorative, and that had sparked a controversy among antropologists who felt they needed a new word. This new word was introduced sometime in the 1960s, but I have never seen a more precise date than that.

""Native American" is a phrase coined in the liberal years of the 1960's to replace "Indian" with a supposedly more appropriate term." [5]

The above is one of the places that I saw this history referenced. I went through a few of them when I was researching this. I'll find the rest when I have more time. For now, back to work on real work.... - Harmil 00:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: I disagree with your assertion that the term "Native American" was created "because the previous term was deemed too controversial" because I feel "controversy" is too strong a word to characterize academic debate among anthropologists. Strictly speaking, I guess, every ongoing disagreement is a controversy, but it still seems like an overstatement. The real controversy, and these days it's a somewhat limited controvery (most American Indians are comfortable with the term "Native American"), occurred after the coining of the term "Native American". I believe you have the cart before the horse, and are overstating the current scope of the disagreement about the term. -- Kevin Myers 10:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think I've stated my case pretty clearly, and my experience and research bear out what I've been saying. Now, we're just repeating ourselves, and my time on Wikipedia is too thin for that kind of thing. I contribute quite a lot to Wikipedia, and this one word is no longer of strong interest to me. What I will point out is that most of the pages which use the term "Native American" on Wikipedia have drawn debate, and even the idea that there is a debate draws controversy (vis. this coversation). Nuff said. I'll trust your judgement and choice of places to spend your time and effort from here in. Take care. - Harmil 04:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's some input perhaps more constructive: I don't think this article is necessary. Everything here could actually be included on the page Native Americans, which is currently tagged as a disambiguation page. However, some pages fall in that gray area between being a disambiguation page and an article about word usage, and Native Americans is one of them. Instead of simple disambiguation, it could serve the same purpose by being an article about the usage of the term, as well as describing why some folks don't like the newer term. Now that we have Native Americans in the United States, I think we can merge this article back into Native Americans, and readers will be better served. -- Kevin Myers 04:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

We just finished weeks of debate over the separation of Native Americans, Native Americans in the United States, and this page. In fact, this page was created specifically to make the resolution of that debate easier by separating out the controversy that several pages touched on, thus enabling us to focus on what mattered most to those articles. If you wish to start reversing some of that work, I suggest that you take it to Talk:Native Americans in the United States (which used to be Native Americans). That page contains the full record of the debate and you can find everyone who is still working on the resulting disambiguations there to discuss your proposal with. I caution you, however, that we've managed to extricate ourselves from quite a lot of debate, and re-kindling part of it now may not be taken all that openly. Good luck to you.

That said, I personally think that would be a poor idea, but your obsession with the word "controversy" hasn't been quenched by my points in the past, so I doubt it will now. - Harmil 00:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I'm the one who weeks ago proposed the basic article-split layout we have right now, more or less. I'm not proposing reversing anything—just fixing and finishing and refining it. Since I endlessly research and write about historic American Indians on Wikipedia, I'll keep prodding our coverage in what seems to me to be the right direction, regardless of how much debate takes place. I'm confident everyone will eventually agree with me, even you! ;-) -- Kevin Myers 04:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I recall that you were the one who intially mentioned the name Native Americans in the United States. and wouldn't let it go until people gave up and went with it (and in doing the disambiguation, I'm more certain than ever that it was the wrong choice because of the temporal and political ambiguity). This sort of "I'm right, you're going to change your mind or give up" tactic seems to be a common thread for you. That doesn't seem like the sort of approach that values other people's time.... - Harmil 12:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I "wouldn't let it go until people gave up and went with it"? This is a complete fabrication on your part: I proposed American Indians in the United States on August 7, 2005 (actually I seconded someone else's proposal), and then mentioned it again exactly once over the next six weeks, and even suggested another article-split scheme without it. Never did I suggest Native Americans in the United States, a title I don't much like but will live with.

My comments here have been aimed at making the articles in question better. Your recent comments have been directed instead at criticizing me, now with the use of bogus descriptions of my past behavior. Please keep your comments directed at the subject matter of the articles, without the personal attacks, and I will do the same. Thanks. -- Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 12:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand my critisism, and I think that characterizing my questioning of how constructive any given change would be or how much your comments did or did not extended a debate as a "personal attack" is hyperbolic at best. There were about six core people involved, and you posted several times to that debate. Part of that debate centered around the idea that the page started off with a laundry-list of alternate names, and any attempt to trim that list was a hornets' nest, and yes, controversial. So, I took the naming controversy off of Native Americans and put it here, which ultimately helped to resolve the dispute (along with the efforts of many others). Now that we've made Native Americans into a disambiguation, you want to put all of this back on the new disambiguation page, turning it into something other than a disambiguation.

But, your problem isn't with a disambiguation page, it's with a word that you disagree with: controversy. What I don't understand is why you don't go out, do the research, isolate out what groups where do not have a problem with the issue of naming and write a section about it. I would have no problem with a "Lack of controversy" section that used good citations to build the case that the majority of modern users of the terminology simply don't have strong feelings one way or the other. What I have a problem with is removing useful content from Wikipedia, or performing a "merge" that throws away the understanding that a) my generation grew up with the confusing sense that "Native American" was too PC while "American Indian" was insulting b) the phrase was invented to escape the stereotypes of the Western genere and c) some modern American Indians don't want to be called Native American, and consider the term insulting. We have a spectrum that ranges from people who don't particularly care what name is used to people like Means on the other end. Over time, that spectrum has changed in interesting ways. Let's explore that deeper and try to uncover useful meaning rather than throwing up our hands. - Harmil 20:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

To me the biggest part of the thing is that Indian means people from India, not Native people in America, other place have native too.... 142.161.94.69 23:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"[I]s an ongoing dispute over": reword as "is an ongoing debate" or (better), "ongoing discussion on"? This may not be about exclusively one or another, or sensational terms like "dispute" rather than "reasoned debate". Per Brunner (2006), d'Errico (2005), and, intriguingly, Mann (2005), this seems to be transcending acrimony and is illuminating the usefulness of multiple prespectives, not unlike the Buhhdist or Jain parable (Indian, no less). -- GoDot 19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Move from comment to text?

<!-- This is not a comprehensive list, but a short overview of the most widely used handful of terms -->

This could be useful to readers. Maybe just mention why or how so, for example per search engine ranking. Much of this controversy can be ameliorated with awareness and mention that schools of thought exist. -- GoDot 19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The US bias of the term Indian Wars has taken it as a given that that term should be used for the particular set of wars in the United States known in US history as the Indian Wars; interestingly they don't usually use it to include the Rogue River Wars, the Yakima War or Cayuse War and the wars of extermination in California, which are before the Plains and Southwest-focus of the usual context of "Indian Wars" in US historical writing (and movie-making). So wars in Canada, Mexico and Russian America, and anything pre-Civil War (technically, although I've gotten a consensus on Talk:Indian Wars about the Yakima and Cayuse Wars needing inclusion), are supposed to be on Native American wars. Which is really crazy, because "Native American", as "we" know from this page and other discussions outside and inside of Wikispace, is a purely American term and not suitable for native peoples outside of the US. So I've been asking for a resolution of this: what to call the wars in Canada, Mexico, Russian America, ostensibly in other parts of the Spanish New World, too; "Native American Wars" will NOT do. Certainly if a Canadian were to search he/she is NOT going to search for " Native American wars". Thoughts? Skookum1 18:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So far, my research has come up with the rubric Indian Wars, with all the baggage this article is about. The best I've found so far is placing Indian Wars in the context of colonial era violence toward empire: "colonial war for empire", "colonial era war for empire"; "colonialism war" is succinct but sounds awkward. Canada and Mexico, S American republics, just didn't have the available capital and the cultural, what, prediliction? to build 19th century empire. Cf. Conrad (1899, 1902), Heart.

In Spanish it is called La Conquista, covering from 1492 (to the present, I believe). Borrowing that into English might do.

There's a tangent to # In Finnish, above. The U.S. and most modern nation states in the Americas, particularly the bigger ones, have a lot of cultural baggage about this that countries like, say, Suomi (Finnland) historically largely lack. Hence the rubric name, which, after all, may be less inappropriate than at first blush.

As if that's not enough, how 'bout the auxiliary tactics (if not the wars being actually auxiliary). Cf. Boyd (1999), The Coming of the Spirit; and Deneven (1976), The Native Population of the Americas. -- GoDot 19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"War on indigenous peoples", per d'Errico (1995). [6] --19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

'Looking for leads toward references (so I may document whereof I write). Have editors any sources for edits made? Thank you.

Very useful article, well written. Just a suggestion, with sources ( Wikipedia:Cite sources, ), it could be deserving of a good rating ( Wikipedia:What is a good article). Even a bibliography and "[[Author last name] (year)]" at the end of sections could be useful. (Having "pp. [pages]" (where relevant), Wikipedia:Citation templates would be frosting on the cake.) The following may already be familiar:

== Notes and references ==
Adding this: {{subst:Footnotes}} generates this:

<references />

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how

to generate footnotes using the <ref> and </ref> tags, and the template below

{{FootnotesSmall|resize={{{1|100%}}}}}

== Bibliography ==

--19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

'Particularly looking for sources about best endonyms and exonyms (section was previously called " 'Self' names versus 'Outsider' names"). Which of several to use? In their language (usally written in IPA) or which of several Anglicizations? --or both? Thank you.

The # Endonyms and exonyms section first appeared as "'Self' names versus 'Outsider' names",

22:43, 29 January 2006 Jorge Stolfi ( Talk | [7]) (Added nomenclature section taken from Indigenous peoples of the Americas. MUST NOW MERGE IT WITH PREVIOUS TEXT.) --[ 22:43, 29 January 2006

This usage can have some importance and usefulness where tribes are or may be adopting their original names, and versions in Native languages exist as well as various Anglicizations. So far, a manual of style has not been much help 'cause the issue is not very prominent, though it can have import for Native issues in media.

-- GoDot 19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Stumbled into this article when linking from another. Thought this section could be enhanced with the addition of some links.

As I read, I found the copy to be somewhat confusing to read, so I also added the "confusing" tag. I can help out with clarification, though my knowledge on the subject is very limited. Thought there should be some discussion first?

Also am uncertain whether I added the correct link for the term "agency". There are several. I assume the definition I added is correct, but could it instead be this one? -- KeithB 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

quick question, forgive my ignorance but did native americans in the united states and canada come to adopt to european sounding names or were these names forced upon them? just a little curious how native americans today have surnames such as "schmidt" and "weiss". 205.188.116.8 23:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A third alternative to "adopting" and "being forced" would be through marriage. Joekoz451 15:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A fourth is sometimes direct transliteration/adptation of a native name into European-sounding/looking names; two that come to mind in my area are Claxton and Lyackson, which are from Straits Salish ( Halkomelem). There are other native-English adaptations that are less English-looking, e.g. Lulua from Tsilhqot'in; but Oleman and Scotchman occur in my old hometown ( http://www.cayoosh.net) and while they are "English" in a sense, they are Chinook Jargon words/names adopted into English usage; they were not "forced" but more like nicknames that became hereditary. Another one such, though not Jargon, is Seaweed or Siwid, which is an important family name among the Kwakwaka'wakw of the Coast. Skookum1 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if anybody cares, but I'll write this anyway. In Finnish Native American is "Intiaani". Indian( of India) is "Intialainen". Both have the base word of Intia(=India). I have not heard that the old term has got politicaly incorrect. However this may be since I am not aware of any Finnish speaking native american, but I think in global world there has to be at least one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.117.173 ( talk • contribs) 22 May 2006

I am a U.S. natural-born citizen of Ojibwe heritage who happens to speak Finnish as well (although not fluently). On one hand, I take offense at the Finns' use of 'Intiaani' (a loan; Swedish, English?) to describe the Indigenous peoples of the U.S. On the other, I realize that many Finns and Finnish speakers do not have personal experience with Native Americans or the issues surrounding them. I do wonder, though, both how the issue (if it is an issue) is thought of in Finland, as well as other countries. If anyone can shed more light on the subject, that would be great. ChillinChaz 21:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In Icelandic the word is "indíáni" for Native Americans but "Indverji" for citizens of India. Note the lack of capital letter in the first word due to Native Americans not being perceived as a single nation. The word is not considered pejorative or politically incorrect to my knowledge. -- D. Webb 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I just added some CanCon (that's "Canadian content" for south-of-the-liners, aka USians), on a quick scan through the rest of other sections such as "Native" I see this page is heavily USAcentric in content/perspective. I'm not sure the "globalize" tag is appropriate as I see a lot of efforts towards discussing global usage: I'm just a bit offed, or something, that there's little here re parallel/non-parallel usages in Canada. I know, I know, I can add it myself - but I'm busy (see contribs) - but this as a note to contributors to this page to bear in mind that over half of North Aemrica's aboriginal people live in Canada, and Canada does exist and also have a separate language/terminological range than what's described here at present.Skookum1 (Talk) 04:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the term 'Indigenous' seems very similar to the term 'Indian'...Is it possible that Indian has just been used unknowingly as a short 'slang' of Indigenous(like perhaps: Indie-an)? Even stranger is that in Catalan, and French the word for Indian is Indigene(Indigene+ous=Indigenous) -- Hrödberäht 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a small section from the intro that made some unfounded speculation. In reviewing edits, this mostly seems to have been a result of someone removing the phrase politically correct and trying to replace it with some arm-waving about the degree to which terms were accepted. [8] This modified the meaning of the text substantially, and I don't think the replacement stood on its own. While this whole article needs to be edited to more carefully reflect the state of the controversy outside of Wikipedia (to avoid being original research), I thought that this one example was glaring enough to justify a quick edit. [9] I then added back the reference to smaller ethnic groupings having related controversies, by putting it into the "See also" section. [10] None of this addresses any of the larger concerns, but I thought picking some low hanging fruit would be worth it. - Harmil 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't looked for them on this page previously; just happened to notice the most recent edit:

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 ʻ.

I'm wondering if it's not also a propos to say:

Historically Native Hawaiians in western North America were known as Kanakas, a derivation of the Hawaiian language kanakamaoli, which means "local guy" in Hawaiian.

i.e. "western North America" for "California and BC mostly, plus in the Oregon Country pre-statehood and maybe a bit later" Skookum1 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronbo76! I was trying to make this article more date consistent as per: Manual of Style

Before Present is used for radiocarbon dating when the extact date hasn't been calibrated from the raw data yet. As such, it makes no sense for it to be in this article about what the American indians should be called. I don't know who put it in the article but he should have used a source that had a more specific range in the Julian calendar. You left a note saying not all indians accept the Julian calendar. That is irrelevent, as per the Manual of Style I linked above. To save you the time, the quick summary is Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article. You can give dates in any appropriate calendar, as long as you also give the date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendar Therefore since the article thinks the date is "definitively at least 4,000 years B.P", it should be converted into the Julian calendar because there is nothing definate about B.P. and it's usage here is inconsistent with the rest of the article.

I am also unclear on the note you left - "not all Native Americans accept A.D." Ok...what do some of them accept and how is it relevent to this specific article? Did you mean the usage of C.E instead of A.D.? How do you know this? Were you aware that most of the world (except Asia) uses A.D. because they use the Gregorian calendar? Wikipedia voted on this issue at BCE/CE debate two years ago but it was rejected. Invasion10 12:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the basic title of this article, it is "controversy". If Wikipedia strives to be inclusive and not present an image as imposed by American culture, which is represented by the "globalize tag", then this article should recognize that not all Native Americans worship a Judeo- Christian god. To get to how I know that, I have three distinct Native American groups coursing through my body and is common knowledge found in most articles such as Native Americans in the United States#Religion and Indigenous peoples of the Americas.

To get back to the article, the term was present before your edit and linked by me. The MOS style, of which I am familar with, states in its third bullet under Eras:

In articles about prehistory, if you use BP ( before present) or MYA ( million years ago), expand these abbreviations when you first use them, as most readers will be unfamiliar with them.

It would be far better to expand about BP because it was present in the article before your edit. Granted, BP uses 1950 AD as the base year, but, it is a scientific method that is more acceptable as in the global view it represents that Native Americans were present before Western society's view that because their language and/or customs were "primitive", they should be glossed over by a history that attempts to define their achievements in terms of Western/American POV. Ronbo76 15:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, outside of the USA, and especially outside of the West, Indian always means from India and you have to state that you mean otherwise. Is this common, or is it just me? Should it be mentioned in the article? ɱўɭĩє ^{What did I do} _wrong 16:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean English-speaking countries outside the U.S., or do you mean translations of the word "Indian"? Assuming that you mean English-speaking countries, are you thinking of countries in the Americas (Canada, Belize, etc.), i.e. where Indians are actually present, or other anglosphere countries? I think "Indian" and its equivalents are pretty common throughout the actual American Indian world. In other languages, the words for "American Indian" and "India Indian" might or might not be identical; for instance, in Chinese, they are similar but distinct.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 03:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Question. Should we change the article title from "controversy" to something more neutral like "Native American naming conventions?".

This question appears at the top of the page but it's been two years so I'm asking again. The reason I ask is that I think it's unfair to Native Americans to call everything a controversy. Some of these names are uncontroversial, and the history of names is not in controversy, it's just a history. Some of the name changes are attempts to set the record straight or help people understand things. If the article is called "controversy" it suggests that the point of the article is to talk about the fighting, not the use of different words. Some people think everything about Native American politics and identity is a matter of controversy, fighting, factions, camps, etc....maybe we should talk about the group like we would any other group (e.g. the country is sometimes called America or the US or the States, but we don't call that a controversy, do we?).

Of course there is a controversy from time to time, and we should be fair to let people know that some usages are controversial, just perhaps make that a section instead of the main focus of the article.

Any thoughts? Wikidemo 22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. -- Amedeo Felix 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Flagged as the article has "some", "often", "many", "a few", "usually" a bit too often. Gront ( talk) 05:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Russell Means, an activist in the American Indian Movement, said in 1998, "I abhor the term Native American...I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins." ^{[1] [2]}

Reading this, it would seem that Means is willing to identify with the name even as a historical mistake (as "I know its origins" would imply). However, checking the actual quote, it would seem that he fosters a fake etymology for the term (as a corruption of the Spanish En Dio). It's a small issue, but it certainly changes the meaning- one which allows him to accept the term on a basis of elevated meaning. Should this be noted, or should the quote be revised? One could certainly use a more honest quotation of the source which would convey the intended sentiment:

• "At an international conference of Indians from the Americas held in Geneva, Switzerland at the United Nations in 1977 we unanimously decided we would go under the term American Indian. We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians and we will gain our freedom as American Indians and then we will call ourselves any damn thing we choose."

It seems like a small issue, but there is certainly a disconnect from reading the quotation here and then reading the same quote in context.-- C.Logan ( talk) 20:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am about to study abroad in Bolivia, which is the only New World country with an indigenous majority. I was reading that "indigena" is considered offensive there, and the term "campesino" (Spanish for peasant) is preferred. It also mentions that the word "cholo" is a derogatory term for indigenous peoples when used by non-indigenous peoples, but some indigenous Bolivians have controversially adopted it as a term of endearment amongst themselves, in the same way that some African Americans use the "N" word. Might these terms be relevant to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.68.111.193 ( talk) 00:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The article offers two opposed opinions on whether this word is offensive in Mexico, neither of them backed up by anything. Which is correct? Farannan ( talk) 18:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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 Arctic: (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).[citation needed]

The above paragraph makes it seem as if the majority of Native Americans in the United States are Na-Dene, when in fact the Na-Dene only comprise a handful of groups (though some, like the Navajo, are admittedly big populations). The East Coast natives such as the Iroquoian and Algonquin speaking peoples were certainly not Na-Dene, but many of them did not live in the Southern United States. -- 129.68.111.193 ( talk) 23:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The offensivness of this word is NOT clear cut nor universal. It might even qualify as an urban myth that has been repeated so much that it ends up becoming true. There is already a wikipedia page foe squaw so this page should just link to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 ( talk) 08:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

1. I moved the "naming issues" into two groups. Those regarding all names in general, and those regarding specific names. I also want to address the issue of "tribal name" vs "indian" when authors are discussing known tribes. (The Indians in Arizona contested teh act... vs., "The Navajo in AZ contested the act"). -- 97.118.104.55 ( talk) 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Crap, I broke the wiki. (that was me, just above, forgot to log in). I was doing a long edit, WP "timed me out" when I submit, and I copy and pasted my changes in... and managed (yeah, me!) to break it. Any help would be appreciated in finding the lost REF code. I can sit in the corner for 15 minutes of time out, if need be. grins.-- Kipruss3 ( talk) 16:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Removed "For example, Native Americans call themselves "Ishnabic" ^{citation needed} meaning "People of the Earth" which is a generic term covering ALL tribes and bands, but most people call them by the names listed.".... term "ishnabic" in Google yielded only 87 results. The majority were Yahoo Answers, but also WikiP, and links to articles that stole from WP. Also, there is no one term "native americans" use, as this is the entire issue of this article.-- Kipruss3 ( talk) 17:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The section "Description and usage" says:

The term Native American was introduced in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s by those who hoped it would be more accurate than Indian and free from its negative stereotypes. What it means exactly depends on the context of its use, and who is using it, and is thus often a great source of confusion. It can mean:

1. All Indians of the Americas;

2. All Indians of the Americas, excluding the Inuit, Aleut, native Hawaiians and some others who arrived later;

3. Indians indigenous to pre-Columbian America who are presently living in the United States, including Inuit, Aleuts, Hawaiians and native Pacific Islanders (Native American Languages Act of 1990);

4. All Indians of the Americas, including the U.S. and Canada but not including Mexico or further south; and

5. Anyone born in the Americas, including those of European descent, for example.

Thus it uses "Indian" as a term which can optionally include the Inuit, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians. But elsewhere the article says "The American Heritage Dictionary excludes Eskimos, Aleuts, and Inuit from Indian in an American context," and I believe that that is standard usage.

I propose that in items 1-4 above, "Indians" be replaced by "indigenous peoples". 75.183.96.242 ( talk) 16:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In Generaliezed arguments about any naming convention,

"the notion that a name was provided by an outsider and not the individual Tribe or Indian people at large; Nez Perce is a French word; "Native American" was coined by the US Government);"

"Nez Perce" is not a French word —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.78.166 ( talk) 04:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's right, it's two French words. le nez = "the nose". percé = "pierced". I know that there's Americans who pronounce it "Nez Peerss", but in Canada it's still more similar to the original French, though we say "pur-sé" rather than "pair-sé". Skookum1 ( talk) 06:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Native American Indian. Controversy ended 72.197.227.147 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

Native Americans should be called simply "Americans" and non-Native American people should be called "Foreign Americans". 69.211.89.123 15:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Mohammad al-Assad

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Except for the whole problem of what exactly is a Native American? There is archeological evidence of a red haired pale people who may have predated the current Native Americans. The Hopi state there were others when they were put hear.-- 71.162.161.175 ( talk) 22:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The article states (in the Meaning of Basic Terms section): ...

The term Indian is commonly thought to have begun with the misconception by Christopher Columbus that the Caribbean islands were the islands in Southeast Asia known to Europeans as the Indies, which he had hoped to reach by sailing west across the Atlantic. Even though Columbus's mistake was soon recognized, the name stuck, and for centuries the native people of the Americas were collectively called Indians.

I have often heard it said that this is just an urban legend, and the term "Indian" comes from the the Spanish phrase "En Dios" - meaning "in with God" or "of God" or "in God's image." Whether this is true or not, wouldn't it be a good idea to clear this up? How about stating the two theories about the word's origin? Then, lay down the verdict about which is right and which is apocryphal, if indeed that verdict is established. jg ( talk) 21:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, with citations. He iro 03:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There's an urban myth that Columbus used the phrase 'una gente in Dios', and that is really where the name comes from. I've added a reference to show that this is a myth. [11] Dougweller ( talk) 18:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And I've expanded the section with added citations. He iro 03:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to take a crack at editing this page for clarity and to simplify the language. Any objections? MinervaK ( talk) 06:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

pls be 'bold any improvement is very very welcome. Moxy ( talk) 06:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Allrighty then. I'm going in. MinervaK ( talk) 18:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Everytime I time I come across this title I keep thinking it is something else when I first see it. This current name makes it sound like the term "Native American" is the disputed topic. But it is a perfectly legit name to mean a Native- American(Person of the United States).

"American" is usually a term reserved to mean the United States. Similar to:

• European American
• African American
• Asian American
• Irish American

etc.

If this article is of a western hemispheric nature it probably should be named to a more correct context maybe more along the lines of the main article. Maybe a better rename would be "indigenous peoples of the Americas name controversy". A new title would be more grammatically correct, less confusing and would be actually what the article is really all about. If you boil this all down the naming controversy is really about the indigenous people's throughout all of the Americans and not a native person of United States origin.

CaribDigita ( talk) 05:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if I'd call it misleading, exactly, just kind of klunky. What about "naming controversy (Native American)?" or something like that? Also, I'm not sure if "controversy" is the best word. Maybe "debate?" MinervaK ( talk) 04:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Whew. There was a lot of extraneous and duplicate information in this article (stuff about the Peyote religion, NAC, basic word definitions, etc.), which I took out today while trying to retain the stuff that seemed valuable as stub matter. I'm leaving it pretty "bare bones" for now and will try to do more tomorrow.

In general, do people think that this article needs to cover debates about naming conditions in other languages, or in non English-speaking locations? The article title suggests that the debate is focused mostly on the term "Native American," and I'm unsure whether it should properly extend into areas like south America, where that English term isn't part of the debate. My knowledge and experience is only with the U.S.-based debate so I'm going to need help if we want the article to have a global scope, and if we *do* want it to have global scope, I think it should be renamed to something more general, like "naming convention debates regarding indigenous peoples."

If there's a better place to post these questions, lemme know. I may go over and put it up on the Indigenous Peoples Project talk page... MinervaK ( talk) 07:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see someone else is working on the page! I think the additions to the opening paragraph are valuable, but *please* be sure to go through the whole article and remove duplicate information further down.

Some points for discussion:

• I don't think that it's necessary to include the longer description of Columbus' mistake -- that is adequately covered in Christopher Columbus and doesn't need to be duplicated here. Unless there's an objection, I will go in later tonight and edit that.

• I also don't think that the dictionary definitions are necessary, especially from such an old edition of Webster's (1913). Agree/disagree?

• The new stuff in the opening paragraph needs some grammar/clarity clean-up, yes? I'm also feeling a bit like it's not quite neutral viewpoint. Opinions?

• This is just a quibble, but in the line about pan-Indian versus tribal naming, I had selected example tribal names from Lakota, Tligit and Yaqui specifically to represent one "plains" tribe, one Inuit/northern tribe, and one southern/pueblo-style tribe. They have been changed back to be all central-U.S. based tribes. I'd like to revert this, so as to give a broader representation of examples. Agree/disagree?

• The above question goes to my previous one about scope -- do we want to cover Mexico/South America in this article? Since we're talking about a mainly English-language debate?

• Rather than have a bullet list of "issues related to any naming convention," I'd like to roll those points (and intended to, my removal of them was not meant to be permanent)into the discussion of each term. Opinions?

MinervaK ( talk) 20:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't do this again. I put in a lot of work removing duplicate and poorly-written material. If you want to discuss, I'm happy to do so; I posted requests for discussion here on the talk page (see above) and on the Indigenous Peoples Project talk page. In addition, the reversion was done while I had the page on 'inuse' which is just plain rude. I'm happy to have the article *improved*, but wholesale reversion like this isn't productive. Thanks MinervaK ( talk) 06:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be prudent to return to the prior version in order to hash it out one step at a time. I haven't checked the body of the agreement, but the new lede seems to be less appropriate than the old one. It appears to miss the point. The paragraph beginning with the sentence "the broad basis of the dispute lies in the conflict between the use of endonyms versus exonyms" is an opinion seemingly unsupported by the body of the article. In general there seems to be a lot of opinion expressed. - Wikidemon ( talk) 07:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

All right, point taken. However, wouldn't edits to the page be a better way to go? Seriously, take a look at the history. The page was incredibly long, included sections on things that were completely unrelated, and had huge swathes of duplicate material. Surely working from an imperfect bare bones would be easier than trying to wade through all of that stuff? If not, I bow to the wisdom of the great Hivemind... MinervaK ( talk) 09:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 19:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

OK, guilty as charged. I'll try not to be so possessive about it. Thx MinervaK ( talk) 23:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As a guess, the most smooth way would probably be to do one section at a time, consolidating sections that are about the same thing, putting things in logical order, and eliminating the redundancies and obvious problems starting at a rate of about a section per day. And after everything obvious and uncontroversial is done, fine-tune the lede to match the scope of the article and propose anything that seems more controversial. Or else, see if your edits stick. I'm not going to revert them but someone else might. - Wikidemon ( talk) 09:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, Wikidemon, thanks. I'll also try to move a bit more slowly to give people time to visit the page and tweak it as desired. MinervaK ( talk) 19:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, be careful not to remove cited information that is pertinent and then oversimply what is left until it is inaccurate. Which you did. The one section I restored was practically the only cited section in the article, which you removed 90% of. You removed all of the info describing the origin of a term and modern controversies over it, you then oversimplified it til it said Columbus ended up in what was then known as the West Indies. It became known as the West Indies after Columbus discovered it and incorrectly concluded it was part of the Indies. I would like to second the calls above for you to take it slower. Read the cited source material before you go deleting and restructuring information, or you run the risk of completely getting it wrong. In fact, it would be best if you did a little research on a topic before just jumping in and doing a complete restructuring of an article. He iro 21:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Heiro, it wasn't my intention for these removals to be permanent. I probably should have put a note to that effect somewhere here to let people know. As you can see, I'm now going thru and adding back in all of that material, correcting the formatting of the citations, cleaning up grammar, removing duplications, etc. I apologize for carpet-bombing the article without explaining my strategy first. I'll be more conservative in future. MinervaK ( talk) 22:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus didn't think he had arrived to India. When he arrived in Cuba, he actually thought he had arrived in Japan which in his letters (logs) he refers to as Cipango, using the name given hundreds of years earlier by Marco Polo. From Cuba he undertakes his search for Cathay, as Marco Polo called China. Indio/India was actually a Spanish word meaning black or someone of dark skin. Even today in some regions in Latin America people say Indian eyes to refer to a person who has black eyes.-- tequendamia 12:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading that the term Indian came from Columbus making some type of Spanish grammatical error in his letters back to Spain. He referred to the natives as "people of god" ("en dios") and because of the humor of his mistake (I guess he said "in god" instead of "of god"?), the name stuck. This was somewhere on Wikipedia, but since I can't find it now, maybe it was false information. - VJ 17:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The "en Díos" tale is indeed false information, albeit one sometimes repeated. As with the equally-false version that it is some corruption of the word indigena, the supposed derivation is rendered completely implausible when considering how Spanish works, and that there are no contemporary references. As for Indio/India being some general Spanish descriptor for someone of dark skin- the regions of south and southeast Asia had long been referred to as "the Indies" (or like cognate) by Europeans, it is not the other way around.-- cjllw | TALK 04:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

indo/india is not a spanish word of some-one with a dark skin...that has a completely diff etymology

India "region of the Indus River," later used of the region beyond it, from Indos "Indus River," from O.Pers., you are thinking of the word negro:from Sp. or Port. negro "black" gunslotsofguns 08:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The original poster still has a good point, though. If Columbus thought he had arrived in Japan, why should he refer to the locals as "Indians"? While the term "indios" certainly originally referred to inhabitants of India, the idea that it was conventionally used metonymically to refer to anyone with dark skin in Spanish at the time makes sense. Now we only need a source for that ... -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 18:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

See the section Native American name controversy#"Indian" and "American Indian" which has plenty of citations for the "Indios\Indian" terms, its origins, etc. He iro 19:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't address the point in question, though. I don't dispute that Southeast Asia was often referred to as part of "the Indies" (as in Farther India); I know that. I can find no indication that the term "the Indies"/"indios" ever extended as far as Japan and the Japanese respectively, however. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 20:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Per this, which is one of the citations used for the current section linked above, "Columbus thought he had made it to India, which at the time was a very broad term in the European imagination, encompassing all of southern and eastern Asia. This vague mental geography in part had to do with the way goods were shipped from the East. The riches of China, Japan, and the islands of southeast Asia were brought first to ports on the southern shore of the Indian subcontinent before being shipped onwards, so Europeans tended to see all of these Asian goods as coming from India (a name that derives from the Indus River). Since the time of Ptolemy, this expansive notion of India was broken down into different divisions, such as "Greater India," "Middle India," and "Lesser India." Thus Europeans would often pluralize India as the Indies." [12]. He iro 21:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The article currently states:

"Injun" is an intentional-mispronunciation of "Indian", generally used in a joking way to mock or impersonate Native Americans' supposed accented English (e.g. "Honest Injun", "Injun time").[20] These terms are now universally considered derogatory and bigoted.

What evidence is there that this is an intentional mispronunciation? I always assumed it was simply a case of "Indian" being pronounced with a particularly strong "Old Prospector"-type accent (in which case if there was any "mockery" involved, it would be more likely to be of the person who would supposedly use the term, rather than of the Indians themselves).

And as for "universally considered derogatory and bigoted" - that's a bit of a sweeping statement, isn't it? I've never heard it described as either of those. (On the other hand, I've very rarely heard it used at all, except in a "mock Old West" context).

(I'm British and living in England, if that adds any perspective). 212.159.79.130 19:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that any use now is intentional and not anybody's real accent, and that anyone here in the states who does not dwell in a cave knows it is a taboo term. You may be right that the term arose from people impersonating whites, but it's used now to impersonate Native Americans. It is a stereotyped and completely unrealistic diction, like saying "Me big Injun. You pale face, Me-want-um your horse." when imitating Native Americans. Or "ching chong" for Asians, and similar racist impersonations of islanders, Africans, etc. Bad, uninformed impersonations of people of other races used to be seen as a good natured joke. Now it is utterly unacceptable. People in the public spotlight lose their jobs and careers over doing it once. The cited source describes the kind of scandal that can arise when the word is used. I'll see if I can find a source for how it came to be. The etymology and evolution of racist terms is an interesting but sad issue, and these things often have their own articles here (e.g. Guido (slang), Kike). There's even an article for Alternative words for British. Wikidemo 20:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting very interesting. As per this source Injun arose in 1812 as a colloquial spelling (Americans did not spell consistently in those days). A character in Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer, Injun Joe, is known as an "Honest Injun", implying that most Indians are considered unreliable and sneaky, but you can trust an honest Injun. The term eventually became an affirmation made by the Indian in plays, films, comedic sketches, etc., and in common parlance where people are jokingly pretending to be Indians or referring to them. Someone could say "I didn't eat the last cookie. Honest Injun." An analogous term is "massa", which is how African-American slaves supposedly pronounced the word "master" when replying to their masters. The 19th century is full of authors writing "yes, massa" in dialogue ( Edgar Allen Poe wrote: "yes, massa, him dead as de door-nail"). Then after Roots (TV miniseries) it became something of a cultural meme, with white people saying "yes, massa" as a way of making racial jokes or referring to slavery or the miniseries by way of objecting to someone telling them what to do. That term, too, became taboo. This would all take some research to get right. Wikidemo 20:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-opening the discussion on "Injun"

To re-open this discussion… I do not think that it can be supported that the pronunciation is "intentional mockery of Native Amaricans". Nor that it is intended to represent "poor English" spoken by Native Americans. The -jun in Injun is not related at all to the suffixed syllable -um as given in Wikidemon's example; it is, rather, an eye-dialect spelling of the normal phonetic process whereby palatalized [d] becomes [dʒ]. In many dialects of English the word drink is efectively pronounced jrink by a similar phonetic process. Both Ingin and Injun are attested dialect spellings (the former attested in the OED at 1683, 1869, and 1870, and the latter in 1812, 1850, 1853, 1868 1872, 1889, 1911, 1937, 1959, and 1973). The 1812 citation in full is: (Col. J. Cocke in Salem Gaz. 28 Aug. 1/2 The people of Tenessee is antious to have orders commanded out for us to march against the injuns on the Wabash. Note too the spelling antious showing dialect where [ˈæŋkʃəs] has become [ˈæntʃəs] as well as the use of is for are. The 1853 citation shows the same dialect process: (M. Reid Rifle Rangers (ed. 2) I. iii. 24) Thur's a mighty grist o' venturin', I heern; beats Injun fightin' all holler. The term honest injun is first attested in 1876 (Mark Twain) with the dialect spelling, but in fact is attested in 1676 with standard spelling (J. Talcott Let. 8 June in S. Judd Hist. Hadley (1905) xv. 169) We sent 27 women and children to Norwich under conduct of some of those we call honest Indians. which does not appear to be particularly pejorative—mildly xenophobic perhaps, but that's a reflection on the European settlers. In none of the citations in the OED is there any evidence that the pronunciation written Injun or the phrase "honest Injun" is any kind of "impersonation" of Native American English. Those assertions in this article seem to be unsupported original research. And again, Wikidemon's assertion that the shift from [ˈɪndiən] to [ˈɪndʒən] "not anybody's real accent" is simply incorrect. -- Evertype· ✆ 08:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The same phonetic assibilation occurs in the shift from Acadian to Cajun. -- Evertype· ✆ 08:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I always thought "injun" was used nowadays to make fun of uneducated white people, not the American Indians themselves. 173.80.170.242 ( talk) 19:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Many terms for Native Americans are left out that are truly unacceptable or racist, should they be mentioned here, perhaps in a section in the end? Red Indians used to be included, perhaps redskins, injun, etc. I put Eskimo in the external links; however, it should probably be mentioned in the article, since the term is acceptable in to some in Alaska and not in Canada. None of the books listed are cited, and the article desperately needs citations. I'll try to dig up anything about Latin American terminology. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 19:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Agreed, these should be included, and I will be re-adding sections for them. At this point, I'm not sure whether to do separate sections for North American and Canadanian terms, or to put all unacceptable terms in a single section. What do you guys think? MinervaK ( talk) 22:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a conflict between this article and the article for Eskimo. This article suggests that the widespread belief that "Eskimo" is Algonquin for "eaters of raw flesh" is factual but the Eskimo article says that this is not accepted by linguists (though the citations are not thorough) and that Eskimo is used in official documents of the Inuit Circumpolar Council. Perhaps a clarification is in order? Martin Blank ( talk) 01:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Alaska Native

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit#Inuit.2C_Inupiat_and_Yupik http://www.isteve.com/2002_Name_Game_Inuit_or_Eskimo.htm No one word covers eskimos (alaskan natives) & inuit, this should be mentioned as the term does not apply to peoples of Canada or Greenland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.162.138.165 ( talk) 13:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No word does cover these peoples, but why would that be notable that the indigenous peoples of the Arctic of three different countries aren't called by a single word? The indigenous peoples of the Greenland and the Canadian Arctic are Inuit. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 23:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I can't find a source for the Columbus passport part. Does anyone know where if comes from? Straight Dope mentions it but omits sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjbauer95 ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have heard this term used to refer to people who are First Nations, however I have recently seen it in article to refer to Native Canadians, born and raised in Canada versus first generation Canadian Immigrant (born elsewhere, Canadian citizen). As a general comment on this article, the source of all the controversy is that any term that tries to define an ethnicity may be seen as racist or derogatory as usually these terms come from one ethnic group describing another ethnic group. Maybe the focus of this page should be to simply list the terms, state where and when it was predominantly in use, and whether the term is now obsolete or considered racist. Maybe also a bit about the history of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murmullo ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree "Native Canadian" is used more for those born and raised in Canada - like "Native of Ottawa". In general "Native" is not used in Canada - as official they are "Indians" ...now refer to as First Nations - but legally called "Indians". In fact the government has drooped native altogether in its terminology page 2 years ago see here - That said the old page did mention this term See here (PDF). Moxy ( talk) 21:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This edit of mine I reversed, as I had the wrong film title remembered....not North by Northwest as I'd remembered......the film was about a German submarine crew who land on Hudson Bay, take over the HBC post, then journey overland into Manitoba and wind up on a Hutterite commune....major-name stars....."blue-eyed klootch" is in the script, also in the original novel; it's more of a Prairie term referring to Metis women, I don't think I've ever heard/seen it in British Columbia. I'll dig around and find the film/book title....and re "siwash"/"sawash", I've had a look around online, not an easy google due to so many wikiclones.....there will be discussions in the archives of the CHINOOK listerve about it, I don't think those would be valid cites even though the participants are noted scholars and the language person for the Grand Ronde agency....the Siwash article is currently a dab without comment on the pejorative context of this term, and needs expansion in that regard; many placenames, though not all, in BC, using "Siwash" have been changed because of the derisive context this word usually has. Skookum1 ( talk) 03:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

HOW DID INDIANS CALLED THEIR LAND" "America" is a European name given by white colonists. Also, the language that most Americans use is English (American dialect)...but how called the indigenous people to the land where they lived. Probably, as there were dozens of different tribes with different languages each called their territory in a different way.-- 83.32.84.197 ( talk) 12:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"Dozens"? more like "hundreds". Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 12:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The article says:

In Britain and some other English-speaking countries outside the Americas, the term Red Indian is still used to differentiate the American natives from the "East Indians".

Well, as a British person I can't deny that the term is still used in Britain; however, this statement does make it seem as though it's common and acceptable usage here. It isn't - and generally speaking, as far as I'm aware, usage in the UK is split between 'Indian' or 'Native American'. Where 'Red Indian' is used it's usually (and I say this as neutrally as I can) by older people who either don't realise it's now considered offensive, or who have simply always used the term and don't intend to change. It's a fact that some people aren't as aware of changes in convention - such as those who still use 'coloured' to refer to black people because they genuinely think it's an acceptable, non-offensive euphemism.

Unfortunately I can't offer any firm citations that would help to defend the UK from the statement made above, but I would appreciate it if someone with more information could look at amending it. - Skadus ( talk) 10:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Crikey! Which part of PC Britain do you live in? Other than on TV and in newspapers I've never once heard of the term Native American being used in Britain. 'Indian' or 'Red Indian' are used universally in ordinary coversation as far as I've ever encountered. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.111.75 ( talk) 18:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Former British colonies in the Caribbean use Amerindian

This maybe so, in the former British colonies in the Caribbean esp. like Trinidad and Tobago or like Guyana where there are still sizable indigenous peoples the term Amerindian is used. And they openly use this amongst themselves too. There's no negative connotations to the word. In the Caribbean "Native American" is usually reserved to mean a Indigenous person of the Americas in the United States area. (There are also Amerindians in French Dominica as well. [13]

Examples:

• Guyana's Amerindian Peoples Association Homepage
• The Guyana Government's - Ministry of Amerindian Affairs
• Caribbean Amerindian Centrelink: Indigenous Peoples of the Caribbean
• Amerindians in Colonial History
• Trinidad & Tobago's Amerindian Heritage Day
• HOW ABOUT AN AMERINDIAN HERITAGE DAY
• A Plain English Guide To the Amerindian Act (Guyana)

CaribDigita ( talk) 19:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to clean up the "Further Reading" material section but am confused as to the meaning of some of the entries.

I can either delete them if they are some sort of bibliography we don't need, or link to them if they are useful (albeit the makings of a very long further reading section); but right now they appear confusing and useless:

* Dailey, Tom (June 14, 2006). "Duwamish-Seattle". Coastsalishmap.org. Retrieved 2006-04-21.

** Dailey referenced "Puget Sound Geography" by T. T. Waterman. Washington DC: National Anthropological Archives, mss. [n.d.] [ref. 2];
** Duwamish et al. vs. United States of America, F-275. Washington DC: US Court of Claims, 1927. [ref. 5];
** "Indian Lake Washington" by David Buerge in the Seattle Weekly, 1–7 August 1984 [ref. 8];
** "Seattle Before Seattle" by David Buerge in the Seattle Weekly, 17–23 December 1980. [ref. 9];
** The Puyallup-Nisqually by Marian W. Smith. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940. [ref. 10].

1. "Dailey referenced "Puget Sound Geography" by T. T. Waterman."
   • Is that an implication that we want to link to it, or is that some sort of copyright thing? The URL it appears to reference is this, by the way.
2. "Duwamish et al. vs. United States of America"
   • Are we wishing to cite a court case? Do we expect the reader to read the court case? Or are we saying this is his source?

meteor_sandwich_yum ( talk) 00:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the confusion derives from an apparent error by Columbus regarding whether or not he was in"the indies", and since people from south Asia are also known as "Indians", perhaps we should add them as a party to this controversy. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 14:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD. You seem to know more about this than I do. meteor_sandwich_yum ( talk) 15:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Only if there are reliable sources specifically discussing the subject of this article. Dougweller ( talk) 17:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Watchers of this page might be interested in this discussion, regarding whether this phrase should be discussed on the article Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Cheers. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 14:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a line in the section "Redskin" under "name controversy" that compared the use of "redskin" to the term "pale skin." I'm not sure how long this line existed, but it was recently altered by an editor to show that it was an invention of Hollywood. Regardless of the term's etymology, neither sentence was cited so should be removed. Even with a citation, the reference's place in this article is questionable. At no point in the wiki article on the use of nigger does it make any parrallels with african-american euphanisms about whites. To say that such euphanysms are somehow equal, or equally perjorative, is dismissive of the entire culture and oppression these races have suffered at the hands of whites. Such a reference to pale face in this article is equally dismissive and has no place. StarHOG ( talk) 17:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Support. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, that is off-topic. Yuchitown ( talk) 19:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

The section notes historical usage of the term "heathen" by European Christians to refer to the native peoples, saying that this was based on the natives "perceived lack of religious belief." That's not accurate, is it? Heathen, historically, hasn't been used to mean "someone with no religious beliefs," but rather a non-Christian. As far as I'm aware, the European settlers were aware of and discussed native religious beliefs. I've never heard anything to suggest that they thought that the indigenous people were atheist. OrthodoxLinguist ( talk) 02:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

OrthodoxLinguist, "heathen" is historically equivalent to the word "pagan." In other words, gods outside the realm of the traditional monotheistic faiths (Judasim, Christianity, Islam) based from their POV. So it wouldn't have anything to do atheism, which is non-religious. I am having trouble locating the source for this passage; it may be accurate but I believe it may be unsourced. Savvyjack23 ( talk) 08:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)