It differs from person to person, but I'm not really offended by the term. My tribe still calls their reservation Indian Island, so I don't think I'm alone.
The only problem I have with the term is that it's slightly confusing, as it's not clear if you're referring to people from India.
Tl;Dr: it's tricky. and because it's not that simple.
I don't know your background and maybe you're from a first nation or tribe, but there isn't a common agreement between the populations of existing tribes and nations on what is offensive or incorrect. This isn't to say that any term is acceptable, but Indians, however incorrectly labeled by a colonizing group a few hundred years ago, is literally how some choose to identify themselves here in North America.
I say this as someone from India and event there, there isn't a common agreement or knowledge to arrive at an "inoffensive" term for folks who live here. Most just use the descriptor left by the British and say "Red Indians" with no malice implied.
As an Indian, from India, I do find it offensive and am sure that a lot of Native Americans would also find it offensive as it takes away from them their American heritage and ancestry.
With the amount of comments on this page it's unlikely anyone will even see this, but am I the only one surprised at how many people still use the term "Indian" to refer to natives populations who look a bit like Indians?
As far as I'm aware, this is the sole reason for the origination of the term in this context (as opposed to, you know, people from India).
There's no need to worry about confusion, Indian-American always means ancestry or origin in India. Native American is the usual term in the US for the indigenous, although many of them call themselves Indians and prefer it, a generation ago it was American Indian, but it's never been the other way around, hyphen or otherwise.
In an American context, it is understandable to think "Indian" signifies "American Indian". Now that East Indian immigration verges on outnumbering American Indians, that will probably change, but it's pretty silly to get offended by historical geographical misunderstandings. I mean, let's vilify Columbus for the right reasons. Besides, what's wrong with Native Americans? Why would it be a put-down to share a name with them? It's not like someone called you "French". b^)
...learn to speak English properly.
It is a truth universally acknowledged among speakers of English who've spoken with many other speakers of English, that the worst English-speakers are the English. I find the Irish to be the most intelligible and melodious, especially those Irish who have lived overseas. "BBC" English, however, is not the way that most English people speak, and besides the UK has no monopoly on that dialect.
Building on this point, I think it feels wrong to use the unqualified Indians as opposed to American Indians to refer to Native Americans. Clearly the people of India are the default referent. So it is surprising to see the more confusing usage in a TLS headline.
I think it safe to say they mean "Indian American" in a racial rather than national context, akin to "African American". So I'd take it to include people who have ethnic ties to the entire Indian subcontinent, including Pakistan and Bangladesh.
As a Canadian who has lived many years in the US, the casual use of racial descriptors still shocks me. I find is very discomforting to be asked my race on forms, to see national news talk about how different ethnic groups feel about this or that.
While the preference is understandable, it's too confusing to use the word "Indian" for two different types of people, one of which is actually from a country called India.
Clarification: Americans confuse Indians between those from Bharat/India and Native Americans. Dots and feathers is a common way to differentiate between both. I am from India.
This is a good point, but I'd also be interested in seeing the opinion of Americans with heritage from India, since using 'Indian' to refer to Native Americans might inconvenience them.
“Indian” refers to Indians as a whole, especially with respect to their political relationship with the United States. Indians themselves use the term in that context, and it’s the preferred term in, for example, the field of Indian law.
It’s like the term “Asian.” Few people identify as generic “Asian” and it would be incorrect to equate it with a nationality or specific culture. But it does work at a high level to address a group of people who have something in common on a political dimension.
There is the other side of the equation , Indians have to fine with it too.
I can’t speak for all 1.4B, but I find this misappropriation of my identity at best annoying and many times offensive .
Just identifying ethnically in say a form is a complex dance in the US .
- Identify as an Asian is considered inaccurate and also not acceptable for East Asians who already find it difficult enough being grouped as one big AAPI bucket which have vast differences
- Identify as Indian could mean indigenous American or people from my country , so ambiguous.
- Identify as Indian American and have nuanced differences between American Indian understood, that is assuming label is accurate - for residents who are not naturalized citizens it is not and that’s most Indians in the US
- Identify as East Indian, that have different interpretation in India and America
It just not our identity it is the swastika, or turbans symbols of my culture are just appropriated to be abused or misunderstood at least our name should be ours ?
The only problem I have with the term is that it's slightly confusing, as it's not clear if you're referring to people from India.
reply