Wordcraft Home Page    Wordcraft Community Home Page    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Questions & Answers about Words    An aboriginal by any other name
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
An aboriginal by any other name Login/Join
 
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
After Stella mentioned her impending visit to Oz, I began to wonder why it is that Anglo-Australians refer to the people who were there first as aboriginals, but we in the Americas do not do the same for the aboriginal peoples of these two continents. It seems to me to make much more sense than "Indians," which they certainly are not.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Wikipedia says
quote:
Application of the term "Indian" originated with Christopher Columbus, who thought that he had arrived in the East Indies, while seeking Asia. This has served to imagine a kind of racial or cultural unity for the aboriginal peoples of the Americas. Once created, the unified "Indian" was codified in law, religion, and politics. The unitary idea of "Indians" was not originally shared by indigenous peoples, but many over the last two centuries have embraced the identity.

American Indian activist Russell Means, disagrees about the origin of the word "Indian." Means says (on his website - click on "Speeches"):
quote:
You notice I use the term American Indian rather than Native American or Native indigenous people or Amerindian when referring to my people. There has been some controversy about such terms, and frankly, at this point. I find it absurd. Primarily it seems that American Indian is being rejected as European in origin-which is true. But all the above terms are European in origin; the only non-European way is to speak of Lakota-or, more precisely, of Oglala, Brule, etc.-and of the Dineh, the Miccousukee, and all the rest of the several hundred correct tribal names.

There is also some confusion about the word Indian, a mistaken belief that it refers somehow to the country, India. When Columbus washed up on the beach in the Caribbean, he was not looking for a country called India. Europeans were calling that country Hindustan in 1492. Look it up on the old maps. Columbus called the tribal people he met "Indio," from the Italian in dio, meaning "in God."

(That speech an also be found here in an easier-to-read format.)

and (from another site):
quote:
I AM AN AMERICAN INDIAN, NOT A NATIVE AMERICAN!

I abhor the term Native American. It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleutes, the original Hawaiians and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiats. And, of course, the American Indian.

I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins. The word Indian is an English bastardization of two Spanish words, En Dio, which correctly translated means in with God. As an added distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States with the American before our ethnicity.

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.

Finally, I will not allow a government, any government, to define who I am. Besides anyone born in the Western hemisphere is a Native American.

T.R.E.A.T.Y. Productions Copyright 1996

And from the Antiques Roadshow site:
quote:
Nor did the word Indian fall out of favor with the people it described. A 1995 Census Bureau survey that asked indigenous Americans their preferences for names (the last such survey done by the bureau) found that 49 percent preferred the term Indian, 37 percent Native American, and 3.6 percent "some other name." About 5 percent expressed no preference.
 
Posts: 2879 | Location: Shoreline, WA, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
There is also some confusion about the word Indian, a mistaken belief that it refers somehow to the country, India. When Columbus washed up on the beach in the Caribbean, he was not looking for a country called India. Europeans were calling that country Hindustan in 1492. Look it up on the old maps. Columbus called the tribal people he met "Indio," from the Italian in dio, meaning "in God."

Has the sound of a wishful folk etymology. And just why would Columbus name Indians in Italian? (Although Columbus was from Genoa, he spoke and wrote Spanish, because he had lived in Spain for quite a while, had a mostly Iberian crew, and worked for the Spanish crown.) And what exactly does "in god" mean as the name of a people? As for what India was called: it depends on the language. The Greeks called it India, the Persians called it Hindustan (land of the Indus river), the English called it India (at least by 1600 when Elizabeth I granted the charter for the East India Company).


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5149 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
Hmmmmm.... Tinman gave us something to chew on, but I do see, at least superficially, the similarity between (H)indus-stan and Ind-ia. Same root, I assume.

I'd not thought about what language Columbo (Forget the Latin here!) spoke, but I seem to remember reading that his logs were in Spanish.

What do the pre-Anglo Australians call themselves? For that matter, why does everyone but the Germans themselves use a Greek word for that collection of Teutonic tribes?
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
Australian aborigines tend to prefer "Aboriginals" (with a capital "A") apparently. There has been a fairly recent trend by some white Australians to label them "indigenous Australians", but they themselves are mostly not keen on that name.

There are over 400 distinct Aboriginal languages/dialects that have been identified in Australia, each with its own 'native' word.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: arnie,


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10940 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
Hmmmmm.... Tinman gave us something to chew on, but I do see, at least superficially, the similarity between (H)indus-stan and Ind-ia. Same root, I assume.


Yes, both are from an Indic source, cf Sanskrit sindhu "river".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,
 
Posts: 2428Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
The Original People in North America are not called aborigines because they were not first discovered ("come upon" is a more correct term) and named by transported criminals and other lowlifes;

This is not correct. The term is a classical one, and was used to refer to the original inhabitants of Latium, the area around Rome. If you check out the OED, you'll see that the Native Americans were referred to as aborigines by some Americans early on.

I am not from the UK, but I would appreciate it if you toned down the invective. We've even had some folks from Australia posting here in the past.


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5149 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

Wordcraft Home Page    Wordcraft Community Home Page    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Questions & Answers about Words    An aboriginal by any other name

Copyright © 2002-12