Native American name controversy
Although "Indian" has been the most common collective name, many English exonyms have been used to refer to the Indigenous peoples of the Americas (also known as the New World), who were resident within their own territories when European colonists arrived in the 15th and 16th centuries.
In addition, some names or terms were pejorative, arising from prejudice and fear, during periods of conflict (such as the American Indian Wars) between the cultures involved.
During the latter half of the 20th century and the rise of the Red Power movement, the United States government responded by proposing the use of the term "Native American" to recognize the primacy of Indigenous peoples' tenure in the country.
[2] The oldest surviving terrestrial globe, by Martin Behaim in 1492 (before Columbus' voyage), labels the entire Asian subcontinent region as "India",[3] named ultimately after the Indus River.
Columbus carried a passport in Latin from the Spanish monarchs that dispatched him ad partes Indie ("toward the regions of India") on their behalf.
Early historical accounts show that some colonists, including Jesuit missionaries in New France, attempted to learn and record the autonyms of these individual groups, but the use of the general term "Indian" persisted.
[5][6] In the late 20th century, some etymologists suggested that the origin of the term was not from a confusion with India, but from the Spanish expression En Dios, meaning "in God", or a similar one in Italian.
[7] David Wilton notes in Word Myths: Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends that this phrase does not appear in any of Columbus' writing.
[7] In the 17th century, Quechua nobleman Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala claimed that the word Indian derived from "en dia," meaning "in day," referring to the Inca Empire's altitude and proximity to the sun.
In addition, some feel that the term has so absorbed negative and demeaning connotations through its historical usage as to render it objectionable in context.
Related groups among these tribal peoples are referred to collectively as either Alaskan Natives (based on geography), First Nations (in Canada), or Siberians.
This term was considered to represent historical fact more accurately (i.e., "Native" cultures predated European colonization).
"[19] The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development used the term "Indigenous peoples" for the first time in its official political declaration in 2002.
The term predominates because of its legal use in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and includes all the above-named peoples.
[24] In addition to being a name imposed from outside rather than an Inuit term, one reason that Eskimo is considered derogatory is the widespread, but incorrect, perception[27][28][29][30] that in Algonkian languages, spoken by some competitive historic tribes of present-day Canada and US, it means "eaters of raw meat".
[34] Usage in English occurs primarily in anthropological and linguistic contexts, rather than Native American ones; it also finds some use in news outlets in describing the Taíno people of Puerto Rico.
This is considered to be quite offensive as Indigenous peoples living in Canada existed prior to colonization and some do not view themselves as Canadians.
The Chinook Jargon, the old trade language of the Pacific Northwest, uses siwash (an adaptation of the French sauvage) for "Indian", "Native American", or "First Nations", either as adjective or noun.
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 meaning "anything native or Indian"; by contrast, they consider siwash to be defamatory.
Generally klootchman in regional English simply means a native woman and has not acquired the derisive sense of siwash or squaw.
In Brazil, the most usual expression is by far índio, with indígena sounding a little more formal; the Portuguese demonym for the country of India is indiano.
In Mexico, Brazil, and several other countries, these names are normally applied only to the ethnic groups that have maintained their identity and, to some extent, their original way of life.
In some Spanish-speaking countries, there are also Ladinos who do not have significant European ancestry, but have adopted the culture of the dominant non-Indigenous population.
Though officially named North America, a number of histories from various countries make reference to the myth of a continent existing atop a turtle's back.
There is also a positive usage among some powwow organizations, colleges, and other Indigenous groups who hold pageants and scholarship competitions, who may use the term "Princess" as a component in the titles they award.
The term was largely used in the 18th to 20th centuries, partially based on the color metaphors for race which colonists and settlers historically used in North America and Europe, and also to distinguish Native Americans from the Indian people of India.
[74][75][76][77] Although there has been some controversy on the topic, it is almost always grouped with other words that carry a colonial implication of exotic inferiority based on race, such as "negress".
[76] There is a minority counter-movement among a small number of academics to "reclaim" what they claim is the possible original meaning of the word, as an in-group term, which could still be offensive if used outside of that speech community.
But even this usage would only be relevant to the original, Algonquian-language phonemes of the word—the small parts that make up larger, historical forms—not the English form currently used as a slur.
