Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2025 July 11

Language desk
< July 10	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 11

Native American or American Indian?

Which term is more appropriate for the article on indigenous peoples of United States, Native American or American Indian? Would the term “indigenous” be more appropriate? 76.81.87.234 (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A complex question: see Native American name controversy. Any proposal to change the name of an existing article should initially at least be discussed on the article's talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Native American' is a rather patronizing exonym. all Indians i know call themselves 'Indians'; 'American' is added for disambiguation. similarly, all Eskimos i know call themselves 'Eskimos' even when they're Inuit; this includes college professors. 'Inuit' is more a Canadian thing, as unlike in the u.s. all Canadian Eskimos are Inuit.

given our history, i personally don't think that white people should be telling Indians what to call themselves, although I'm so habituated to 'Native American' that it's hard to switch back. — kwami (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do American Indians call people from India? HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indians from India are traditionally known in the Americas as "East Indians". Zacwill (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That seems clumsy. And all because Columbus didn't know where he was. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i tend to use 'hindian', though that has regional implications in india that make it inappropriate for the whole country. — kwami (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard "East Indians", and also "India Indians". And it's usually clear from the context. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the States, if it's not clear from context, I think you might say something like "Indians, you know, from India". What American Indians specifically say I couldn't say. Where I live (historical Ohlone people land) there are a lot more persons whose ancestors came from India than there are Ohlones, so if you say Indian in a modern-day context you probably mean South Asian, whereas if you use it in a historical context you probably mean Native American. I'm not sure I ever noticed that exact discrepancy before. (Complication: there are a lot of persons of Mexican descent, and a lot of them have Aztec or Nahuatl blood, but it's unusual to think of them as Native American.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

in Mexico, you're only indígeno if you speak the language or otherwise identify as such. native americans who have given up their language for Spanish are considered mestizo -- though there are also a lot of mixtecs and other indígenos in the u.s., or at least will be until ICE rounds them all up. — kwami (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Kwamikagami: We live in a crazy world where we're constantly being told that a word or expression that was in wide use yesterday is suddenly outrageous, offensive and unacceptable today. For example, the people we call "African Americans" today underwent a series of name changes (including at least two "n" words) before the current formulation took hold. Sensitive and respectful people try to keep up with these kinds of bewildering developments. So when we're told that "Eskimo" is inappropriate, and we should call these people "Inuit" because that's what they call themselves, we comply. When we're told that the people native to the North American continent are not "Indians", "Red Indians" or "American Indians", but Native Americans, we comply. When we're told that the people native to Australia are not blacks, blackfellas, or even necessarily aborigines (because some are unrelated Torres Strait Islanders), but indigenous Australians, we comply. Now you're telling us we're being patronising. From whom should we be taking our marching orders when it comes to cultural sensitivity? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i said the word - or at least its history - was patronizing, not that that people who use it are. it's similar to 'san' for 'bushman' -- this wasn't a case of the people themselves deciding what they want to be called, but of outsiders deciding what's best for them.

i remember a white southern u.s. woman who told a black man who'd done something nice for her that it was 'very white' of him. he got offended, and she was confused, because she'd never associated the word 'white' in that phrase with race, and had no idea that it was racist. the phrase was racist, but i have no reason to think that she was. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]