Wiininiskwe *Ajidamoon*
Favorite Answer
It is accurate.
Native American is a legal term....NOT an anthropological one. It was coined by the US government and is defined by the....gasp.....Bureau of INDIAN Affairs, as the citizens of federally recognized tribes of the US.
Columbus was looking for a faster trade route to the East Indies....NOT India. India did not exist at the time. The Euros called it Hindustan. It's peoples were called Hindus, regardless of religious affiliation. When he arrived here, he dubbed the people he met.....the Tainos......Los Indios. Which is Indian, phonetically in English. WE were called Indians long before the people of Indian. A couple hundred years before. It is NOT racist in the least. The only people who think it is, are non-Natives.
In the US, a Native must carry a Certificate of Indian Blood, to prove their identity. Here in Canada, I have to carry a Certificate of Indian Status. WE ARE Indians, regardless of what others have to say about it.
* I NEVER hear 'First Peoples' here in Canada. Its First Nations. Aboriginal is a Canadian government lump term, that covers Inuit, Metis and Status Indians. It was the Inuit who stated they did NOT like being called Eskimo. That isn't what they have ever called themselves.
capitalgentleman
The word "Indian" was once common to describe the natives of the Americas - thanks to Columbus, who thought he had found India.
But, "Native American" is just as bad, as there are natives in all the countries of North and South America. I have seen Americans refer to Natives in Canada as Native American - they aren't American at all! We call them First Peoples, or Aboriginals.
neva
As correctly stated above, Indian are from the Indian (from the Indus river valley) mistakenly named by a disoriented Columbus; although I personally prefer being called and identified by my tribe,I realize that in this hemisphere, for many years we have been called such and even my parents I'd as such without taking offense thereby. "Injun" or "redskin" or "savage native" however, would be an entirely different matter. I currently ID as "indigenously challenged" and then wait for the reaction.
michinoku2001
They wouldn't have called it the "American Indian Movement" if the Indians involved thought it was inaccurate or racist. It's just semantics-in the US "American Eskimo" is perfectly acceptable, but in Canada "Eskimo" is no longer used to refer to Inuit people because it's "racist".
?
No we could consistently now no longer furnish the land shrink returned yet we would desire to stay on the comparable time for the mutual great element approximately the two. an surprising area of this society has community American blood. To be categorised as community American calls for a million/32 blood which optimum have particularly interior the south. no question that community human beings have been abused, mistreated, swindled and greater removed from their way of life in spite of the elementary actuality that i've got have been given self assurance that wrongs could be made suitable and that i think of of that optimum could be prepared to compromise on the two components. for human beings like me it can be a win win subject as i'm the two and that i will relate to the two components of the subject..the kind between this social accumulating interior the U. S. and the middle east is that prophecy is that the Israelites could have conflict with those human beings by ability of ability of out time as a thorn of their element. there'll be wars and rumors of wars. Israel will stay to tell the story. .