Short, Politically Correct word for Native Americans

Question

No more than four syllables, more PC than Indians.

EDIT: I arbitrarily chose four syllables because any more seemed like a mouthful. I like to be PC and not have to stumble over 6+ syllables.

Native Americans, as far as I was led to believe, is the PC term. Why have you put a limit on the number of syllables? — Mari-Lou A, Jun 06 '14 at 05:55
It hasn't caught on in the US, but I really like the Canadian term "First Nations". — MT_Head, Jun 06 '14 at 06:10
@fredsbend - I like that even better, but "First Nations" is an actual legal term (for whatever that's worth.) — MT_Head, Jun 06 '14 at 06:19
This seems arbitrary. Why four syllables as opposed to three or five? Whose opinion counts when determining relative P.C.-ness? — choster, Jun 06 '14 at 07:34
It is arbitrary. Is there anything wrong with just saying Native Americans? — Tristan r, Jun 06 '14 at 10:15
It’s most politically correct not to distinguish people by ancestry, physique, beliefs etc. unless absolutely necessary in a given context. Until you provide your context, nobody can provide a well-grounded answer. For example, what other group do you want to compare them with (= separate from), indigenous people of Australia, US citizens without American ancestry before 1492, people with genetically dark complexion, Christians …? — Crissov, Jun 06 '14 at 13:43
It is hard to know what hundreds of loosely affiliated ethnic and tribal groups speaking dozens of mutually unintelligible languages spread across 40 million square kilometers "prefer." — phenry, Jun 06 '14 at 16:03
I’ve known plenty, and from more than just one state or tribe, and every single one of them has called themself Indian as a way of distinguishing their race from that of the Old World settlers. Context is everything: in an American context, Indian is *the* word that has come to indicate the pre-Columbian human denizens of the Americas. It doesn’t matter if Old-Worlders don’t like it. Any and every search for a “politically correct” weasel-word is doomed to fail, and is in fact, off topic and opinion based as well. Look the comment queues here. — tchrist, Jun 06 '14 at 17:26
I believe it's rude to make blanket statements about what the indigenous people of the Americas "prefer," especially in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary. (More than a third of indigenous American respondents to a 1995 US Census Bureau survey preferred "Native American," a share that has surely grown since then--preferences tend to be largely generational, according to a number of sources.) For that matter, it's rude to suggest through omission that the existence of 4 million North Americans of (east) Indian descent is not relevant to the question. — phenry, Jun 06 '14 at 17:59
If only a third prefer it, then apparently most do not prefer it. — Oldcat, Jun 06 '14 at 18:28
This whole question is asking us to choose what is PC -- it's basically asking for a blanket statement. tchrist's comment (and RyeBread's answer) address the question as asked. — PeterL, Jun 06 '14 at 18:29
@phenry - Please please go and talk to Indians and call them indigenous and come back to us after they laugh at you. I am sorry but the fact that you use that term really gives your stance (which I am still unsure what it is) little clout in this argument. Just using that term is like calling them neanderthals. They weren't the first. There were more than just Indians on the continent. This is a PC/history/culture question. Indians refer to their group as Indians. I honestly thought this question was so simple it would hardly get a hit. — RyeɃreḁd, Jun 06 '14 at 20:45
@RyeɃreḁd - I was trying to choose a term other than the two major ones under discussion here because I was afraid that if I used "Native American," which is my preference, you'd attack me for it. Good thing I dodged that bullet, huh? — phenry, Jun 08 '14 at 00:05

score 22 · Accepted Answer · edited Jun 07 '14 at 02:49

22

I know Indians and they prefer to be called Indians. Their reservations have names like Navajo Indian Reservation. Any office or bureau for them would have the name Indian in it.

Here is a good article that discusses the Indians’ own preferences about what they would like to be called — and not called. So not only is it not offensive but it’s actually preferred, so go with that.

Here are some government bureaus run by and for the Indian population in America. Not sure they would choose to have an offensive name in their office titles.

Added based on comments: Yes, Columbus coined the term probably (there is talk that Indian comes from an Indian word too). He was looking for the (East) Indies, though, not India itself. Yes, there may be confusion about whether the person is from India or they are an Indian (and my good friend’s dad would simply say: that is the white man’s issue). Fact is the word was used for the peoples of the Americas first and has continuously been used since then.

So (poor) choices:

Redskins — Worst choice in my opinion. Some Indians are OK with it, but not all for sure. I am not sure how offensive it is since I know of many Indians that want Washington to keep the name, but who wants to get in the middle of that? I would be OK with a team named Whiteskins, but stay away.
Red Indian — To me this is “old” and I equate this to the word negro. Might be slightly offensive too to some. Probably would just get you laughed at.
Native American — Anyone who is born in America is a native American.
American Indian — Some Indians feel that the word Indian is theirs and that when you use American Indian, you are basically saying that only people from India are “real” Indians.

edited Jun 07 '14 at 02:49

tchrist

134,759

answered Jun 06 '14 at 04:53

RyeɃreḁd

16,833

3

It must depend on the individual (and when you say Native American do you mean USA only)... – Elliott Frisch Jun 06 '14 at 04:58
@ElliottFrisch - Well we are on ELU. I might have a different answer on SLU. I have never heard Indians referred to as Indigenous. Sounds like cavemen right? – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 05:04
9

But how would someone know if you were referring to (Asian or North American) Indians? With the exception of Indian Reservations, the two other links could be directing me to the Indian subcontinent. – Mari-Lou A Jun 06 '14 at 05:51
2

@Mari-LouA - how would you know who an indigenous or autochtonous is or where they were from? The fact that people would vote for these words that strip Indians of their heritage is a joke. I would feel ashamed if I called one of my Indian friends indigenous. I am not sure they would be "offended" or not but they would certainly laugh at me. Indian is what they prefer. I think it is pretty clear since they name their departments with Indian instead of native american. – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 05:59
I note that this dictionary defines Indian as "of or relating to the indigenous peoples of America" (adjective) or "an American Indian" (noun) as the primary definitions of the word. – Gnawme Jun 06 '14 at 06:00
1

@Gnawme - My parents were born in America, so was I. Aren't I a native American or indigenous? – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 06:04
@Gnawme The same dictionary, but with "British English" selected, has the same two definitions but the other way around. – ClickRick Jun 06 '14 at 06:04
@RyeɃreḁd Native, yes; indigenous, no. (Although Indians were arguably just much, much earlier arrivals.) – Gnawme Jun 06 '14 at 06:08
1

"how would you know who an indigenous or autochthonous is or where they were from?" I wouldn't, but the point I'm making is that Indian is ambiguous, and of course the unambiguous term, Red Indian, is no longer acceptable. – Mari-Lou A Jun 06 '14 at 06:10
@Gnawme - My exact point (your point in parentheses). I can just see me calling a friend of mine indigenous and having him make cave man jokes for the next 5 years. – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 06:11
5

@Mari-LouA - Lots of words are ambiguous. Indigenous and autochtonous are not only drastically ambiguous but they are wrong (there were other peoples before the Indians in America). I understand your point on Indian (American) vs. Indian (India) but that's just how it is. The word Indian is entrenched in their culture and they take great pride in it. Whether we have to figure out if it is one or the other... that's not their problem. – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 06:16
1

I don't think the problem with Indian is that they found it offensive, but that it is wholly incorrect. Indians are from India. I see your point about "indigenous". It feels like the word implies ancient peoples, not current. Would we call the while people in Europe "indigenous"? Probably not, unless we were referring to the stone age peoples. – Jun 06 '14 at 06:16
@fredsbend - First whether if it is correct or not is not important to the question. And second is totally correct. The word Indian was used for those in America before India. And Indian came from Indies, the islands of the Pacific, not the nation of India. I find it really a hard argument to make saying people from India own Indians. – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 06:23
@Mari-LouA - Red Indian would be kind of like saying negro. It's kind of offensive but really more just old. I would get the same ribbing saying that as I would indigenous. I will try one or the other out soon. I could say, "You guys remember John, my indigenous friend? He is a really sad autochtonous American." Seriously they would just make fun of me. They make fun of people thinking they are offended by Redskins too. We were talking about this last month and they were joking if the NFL named a team Whiteskins it would be seen as a white power thing. PC sucks. – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 06:29
1

And autochthonous is also damn difficult to spell and pronounce – Mari-Lou A Jun 06 '14 at 06:33
3

@Rye Yes, there is something to be said for longstanding convention. But this goes the other way too. We are talking about PC, a complicated topic. Whether the people in question find it acceptable or not does not make the term PC. Black use of the n-word freely, while others are persecuted for it is a good example. Here, we have the reverse. The Native American is content with and even prefers "Indian," but many of the rest of us will not use it for various reasons. – Jun 06 '14 at 06:36
2

@fredsbend - Why would you not use a word that a culture prefers you to use. No black person would tell other cultures to call them n$(%($. If you do a quick google you will see that Native American is offensive to Indians too. – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 06:39
5

As an (Asian) Indian, I always find it somewhat confusing when Americans use "Indian" ☺. – Ramchandra Apte Jun 06 '14 at 06:48
1

@Rye Same reason I won't say n$#@% outside of black company. I was raised to avoid the two terms. BTW, what I am finding regarding "Native American" is that it really depends on what tribe they are from. Someone on Yahoo answers said that Sioux hate it, but some others don't really care. Ultimately, they all seem to prefer to be called by their Tribe. Sioux are "Sioux", Crow are "Crow" and so on. – Jun 06 '14 at 06:50
1

@fredsbend - THe Indians I know are incredibly proud of their heritage. I am a bit jealous because I am a mutt and probably not more than 5% anything. By their tribe is preferred. Indian second. Some are OK with Native American. Some are offended by American Indian (because they think you are saying American to take their name - Indian - and give it to those from India. When you start with the PC world you never win. Why it's better to just be real. – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 06:56
1

"When you start with the PC world you never win. Why it's better to just be real." Definitely. – Jun 06 '14 at 07:01
15

I can't believe how lucky we Germans are for at least having the distinction between "Indianer" (America) and "Inder" (Asia)... :-D – DevSolar Jun 06 '14 at 07:36
4

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People also keeps a historic name, although many African-Americans would not want to be referred to as 'colored'. The OP asked for a politically correct name, eg one which is considered appropriate and non-offensive by a consensus of society (including eg. Indian-Americans), not one which '[all the] Indians [that you know] prefer to be called'. – jwg Jun 06 '14 at 09:34
3

Government agencies with "Indian" in their name were created by white (European descent) people and imposed on the native people of the land. The "Indians" certainly didn't choose to have those agencies, much less give them their names. – Phil Perry Jun 06 '14 at 14:09
2

@RamchandraApte, we call them "Indians" because Christopher Columbus was totally lost and thought he had literally reached your country (India). – Phil Perry Jun 06 '14 at 14:14
@PhilPerry - as mentioned before in common, Columbus was trying to find the Indies (islands) not India the current country. Also you are absolutely wrong about the govt agencies. The tribal counsels rule and govern those things and would certainly tell the US government what name they would like. – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 15:06
@jwg - The NAACP is a one off. Can you imagine an agency called Bureau of Colored Education? And PC is all about what that race or culture wants to be called. American Indian is fine too if they are from America but that wasn't the question. But some would find that redundant too. I don't think someone would say (about me), "Look at that white American guy." Probably just say white guy. – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 15:10
5

And PC is all about what that race or culture wants to be called. No it's not. – jwg Jun 06 '14 at 15:29
5

I've spent a year in New Mexico and asked a few <well that'd be cheating now> that exact question. And the consensus was that there's no consensus. Sticking to the tribe works, but you have to know (or have a good guess depending on region). Otherwise ask or assume that they'll tell you which term they prefer. Quite a few I met didn't care one way or the other. "First Nation" wasn't named so far but also comes up. – Voo Jun 06 '14 at 15:30
3

@Voo - That is a really good comment. You are for sure right about the tribe name. My friends are Creek and Cherokee - I played football with them. We have talked about this before too and that is why I answered Indian. Maybe not the first preference for everyone but no one was ever upset by it either. And anything else usually didn't sit well with someone. Maybe this is a regional thing too. I don't think I know many Indians outside the Oklahoma area. Could you have called anyone "indigenous"? – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 15:44
1

@Rye New Mexico is mostly Navajo, Apache and Pueblo, although I also knew some Lakota. So could depend on tribe or region, definitely. Nobody referred to themselves as "indigenous" as far as I can recall, so it didn't come up. Can't say if they would have considered it offensive, but it certainly wasn't their preferred name. Some were offended by any other term ("first nation/people" was the safest bet in my experience, but it's a small sample size) than the "right" one, but most were really nice and friendly people who were happy about my interest. – Voo Jun 06 '14 at 16:54
2

I truly don't wish to be rude, but this is a spectacularly terrible answer to be marked as accepted. Not only does it flagrantly generalize from one person's limited experience in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary and make an overt recommendation based on that overgeneralization, but it goes out of its way to piss on every person from India or of (east) Indian heritage who might come across it. Please, @FracturedRetina and anyone else who reads this, do not take this recommendation. – phenry Jun 06 '14 at 18:22
3

@phenry - I gave specific examples of documented thought from the Indian community. Why do people from India get to be pissed off when they weren't the first to be coined Indians? Your comment is nonsense. Instead of trying to refute anything you simply overgeneralized using your limited view without even giving an example, context, anything. I have probably 20 people I work with from India. I don't see them even commenting on the word Indian being used for both groups other than saying it is confusing. I have no issues with negative comments but at least say something. – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 18:30
2

@RyeɃreḁd - What are you talking about? "Indian" as a demonym for natives of the Indian subcontinent dates from the 14th century, a century before Columbus was even born. And who put you in charge of deciding what Indians "get to" be offended by, anyway? – phenry Jun 06 '14 at 18:44
1

@phenry - Indian was used to give a name to the people of the West Indies. I am not saying I get to say who gets offended by what. I gave concrete examples of how Indian is used in their culture (I didn't even get into the Indian community backing of Cleveland keeping its baseball name). What I ask of you if commenting is giving an alternative or say something about a specific point I made. I am sure anything I mention could be argued over but that's not what you are doing. You are just saying this is wrong... but I offer no reason why or an alternative. – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 18:52
3

You cited the views of a small number of people you happen to know personally and concluded that "not only is it not offensive but it's preferred". That's an overgeneralization, and an unwarranted one. You said that people from India were not the first people to be called Indians. That's incorrect. You conflated Native American, a widely used ethnic label, with native American, notionally a more general term. That's disingenuous. You asked, rhetorically, why people from India "get to" be upset about an issue of usage that is very germane to them. That's offensive. – phenry Jun 06 '14 at 19:56
This happens in other American countries and languages, too: Brazil: “A presença dos índios no território brasileiro é muito anterior ao processo de ocupação estabelecido pelos exploradores europeus que aportaram em suas terras.” Mexico: “Los indios estaban exentos de la jurisdicción inquisitorial, y sus asuntos de fe eran atendidos primero por los misioneros y luego por un tribunal dependiente los obispos, que los juzgaba con más tolerancia por ser considerado ‘neófitos’ en la fe.” – tchrist Jun 07 '14 at 03:13
1

@DevSolar If Germans use Indianer for the ones from America and Inder for the ones from Asia, what do you call what in English we call Indianans — that is, people from the state of Indiana? Aren’t they also Indianer? How can you tell the two apart? :) – tchrist Jun 07 '14 at 12:01
3

@tchrist Hoosier or Einwohner. No, really. – RegDwigнt Jun 07 '14 at 12:04
1

@RegDwigнt I was afraid you might say Hoosier! :) – tchrist Jun 07 '14 at 12:06
5

@tchrist: "Amerikaner", most likely. From over here, which state inside the US you're coming from isn't really that important, unless it's a "noteworthy" state. Texas, New York, California and Hawaii probably would earn special mention; I'm not even aware of a word for "someone from Alaska", let alone Indiana. I seriously doubt more than one in ten thousand Germans knows the word "Hoosier". (I didn't know it until I looked it up on Wikipedia.) – DevSolar Jun 07 '14 at 18:24
1

"Red Indian" reminds me how a friend of mine always asks, when I mention someone is an Indian: "dot or feather?" I'm sure someone would find it offensive, but the distinction has a child-like descriptive nature to it, not that I would start saying "feather Indian" or "dot Indian". I also wonder, would Asian Indians then be "yellow Indians" or something else? – Jun 11 '15 at 22:21
@Ramchandra Here in the Midwest, people usually add "East" to differentiate. So it's "Indian" (US) and "East Indian" (or Eastern). – W9WBH Jul 09 '15 at 06:37
@RyeɃreḁd "And PC is all about what that race or culture wants to be called" Not according to the Latinx – 小奥利奥 Feb 28 '21 at 07:46

score 14 · Answer 2 · edited Jun 06 '14 at 17:02

14

Amerinds (three syllables) or Amerindians:

another term for American Indian, used chiefly in anthropological and linguistic contexts

Note, for example, the Amerind Museum, founded by the Amerind Foundation.

The longer "Amerindian" has also been widely adopted in English-speaking South American nations. For example, it is the official term used by the Guyanese government.

edited Jun 06 '14 at 17:02

Community

1

answered Jun 06 '14 at 05:57

Gnawme

40,887

If I could accept two answers, I would also accept yours. – rootmeanclaire Jun 06 '14 at 17:42
That word sounds really messed up. – Simon Kuang Jun 09 '14 at 22:36

Elliott Frisch · Answer 3 · 2014-06-06T17:21:30.383

10

Indigenous people. If you want to be more concise (and sensitive), you'd need to know their actual tribe (they probably have a separate language). Some examples Dine, Cherokee, Ojibwe.

edited Jun 06 '14 at 17:21

answered Jun 06 '14 at 04:46

Elliott Frisch

6,780

5

How is that "sensitive"? I know that Europe is broken into linguistic/cultural groups like "German" and "Spanish", but I don't feel insensitive for saying "European" when that is what I mean. – Michael Lorton Jun 06 '14 at 10:37
5

@Malvolio: We have a habit of lumping all of the various tribes together as "Native Americans", when often the only thing they really have in common is that they were all here before we were. Referring to them by tribe at least acknowledges that much. – cHao Jun 06 '14 at 11:17
7

Further note that some names we know tribes by are considered denigrating by them: Eskimo (Inuit is preferred), Navajo (Dine), Sioux (Lakota, Dakota, etc.). These were usually names given to them by their enemies, and picked up as labels by Europeans. – Phil Perry Jun 06 '14 at 14:06
1

I was born here, so I am indigenous. – Oldcat Jun 06 '14 at 18:30
1

@Oldcat No, you're a natural born citizen. "Indigenous people" has an anthropological meaning. – Elliott Frisch Jun 06 '14 at 18:31
2

That's jargon for anthropology, then, not English meaning. – Oldcat Jun 06 '14 at 18:33
It depends on context (as everything does), do you include First Nation members from Canada in your definition of Native American? Indigenous people is inclusive, Native American (or Indian) is (AFAIK) exclusive. Of course the Inuit are (Native) Americans too, thanks to Seward's Folly. Are they Indians? – Elliott Frisch Jun 06 '14 at 18:35
First Nation is just Canadian settlements. I like the fact that you said that they like to be called by their tribe name (not our name for their tribes). However I don't see any examples of where Indians want to be called Indigenous. I am not saying that some Indians don't prefer this, I would just like to see it. – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 20:49
2

@PhilPerry "while Inuit describes all of the Eskimo peoples in Canada and Greenland, that is not true in Alaska and Siberia. In Alaska the term Eskimo is commonly used, because it includes both Yupik and Iñupiat, while Inuit is not accepted as a collective term or even specifically used for Iñupiat (who are Inuit)" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo#General – Pharap Jun 06 '14 at 23:38
@RyeɃreḁd This Wikipedia article seems to cover it nicely. – Elliott Frisch Jun 06 '14 at 23:42
Yea I get what indigenous is and how its used. Is there anything mentioning that Indians prefer to be called that. Or even a quote from one Indian source using the term? – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 23:45
@RyeɃreḁd I'll keep an eye out for a primary Indian source, but there is this quote - 'Indigenous peoples' ... is a term that internationalizes the experiences, the issues and the struggles of some of the world's colonized peoples," writes Maori educator Linda Tuhiwai Smith. – Elliott Frisch Jun 06 '14 at 23:46

chepner · Answer 4 · 2016-10-04T17:41:59.280

There is the term indigene, "one who is indigenous", but I don't know if it has any negative connotations. I've only seen the word used in one novel, and I had to look it up to verify that the author hadn't coined it himself as a back formation from indigenous.

The Google search results don't make me cringe in horror (mostly dictionary references), so it would seem to be a fairly neutral, if obscure, word.

score 1 · Answer 5 · edited Jun 06 '14 at 10:36

1

They can be referred to as autochthonous people in general and neutral terms.

Originating where found; indigenous: an autochthonous people; autochthonous folktales, native.

edited Jun 06 '14 at 10:36

Michael Lorton

28,092

answered Jun 06 '14 at 05:01

What does this have to do with Indians? – RyeɃreḁd Jun 06 '14 at 05:04
3

@RyeɃreḁd This term is perfectly acceptable: 1. Originating where found; indigenous: autochthonous rocks; an autochthonous people; autochthonous folktales. See Synonyms at native. – Third News Jun 06 '14 at 07:21
Very similar in origin: aborigine (ab: from, origin: the beginning), but this is usually applied only to Australian natives, and not those of the Western Hemisphere. It also has a somewhat negative historical connotation to it. – Phil Perry Jun 06 '14 at 14:12
Yes, that's why I suggest 'autochthonous' which a more neutral term. – Jun 06 '14 at 14:15
Good suggestion, although much more commonly encountered in Spanish (as autóctono) than in English. – Casey Jun 06 '14 at 14:32
1

This is a pretty word for "native". – Kit Z. Fox Jun 06 '14 at 18:08

score 1 · Answer 6 · answered Jun 06 '14 at 07:21

Anthropologically, there is the term Mongoloid.

Some serious issues to consider before you use it:

It also refers to most of the Central, East, and Southeast Asians.
It is sometimes considered a derogatory term for the people it refers to due to a long history of it being used derogatorily and a general hate for the mongol people and those resembling them.
There is a history of Down's Syndrome (and any disorder that contorts the face in a peculiar way) being called "Mongolism", thus there is an association that Mongoloid is a derogatory term for such persons.
In casual use, you will either appear dated at best and racist at worst.

For casual use, I would just stick with Indian, Native, Native American, American Indian, etc.

+1, not because it's the term to use, but because this answer makes the list complete (and does include due warnings). — DevSolar, Jun 06 '14 at 07:38

Short, Politically Correct word for Native Americans

6 Answers6

Linked

Related