"I asked seven anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians if they would rather have been a typical Indian or a typical European in 1491. None was delighted by the question, because it required judging the past by the standards of today—a fallacy disparaged as "presentism" by social scientists. But every one chose to be an Indian."
Want to go really meta? People who say "presentism" think the game is borked because it requires judging historical cultures against the standards of modern day people of good will. I think the game is borked because it requires judging your answer against the standards of academic liberals, who are invariably the ones who hear the question asked and answered.
This question has nothing to do with the culture of America or Europe in 1491 and EVERYTHING to do with the culture of the anthropologists you know in 2009. Answering the question is just a signaling mechanism to remind the people you're talking with that you're all members of the same tribe.
I have an expensive piece of paper certifying to my membership in the tribe of We Intensely Dislike Making Absolute Value Judgments, Because Only Evil White People Do That.
White folks tried calling them "Native Americans" once, and a lot of them still do it, but a lot of American Indians have been calling themselves American Indians for so long they don't really care anymore. "Native American" is a name white people made up to make themselves feel better.
It will become more of an issue as more people from India immigrate over here. I imagine that in some parts of the country, "Indian" already means Indian more than it means American Indian.
Also, the more accurate adjective is "indigenous" or "aboriginal", not "native".
Eh. "indigenous" and "aboriginal" are both words which date from the 17th century, not used in the sense you're talking about until the 19th, whereas "native" was used in that sense at least as far back as the 15th century. The OED's definitions of both "indigenous" and "aboriginal" define those words with reference to the word "native". Calling them "more accurate" is a bit absurd, I'd say. Less ambiguous perhaps.
I've always understood that "native" was defined on an individual level, i.e. you would be a native American if you were born in America. "Indigenous" and "aboriginal" apply to races rather than individuals.
a. Born in a designated place; belonging to a particular people by birth; spec. belonging to an indigenous ethnic group, as distinguished from foreigners, esp. European colonists.
indigenous, a:
2. Of, pertaining to, or intended for the natives; ‘native’, vernacular.
aboriginal, adj:
1. a. First or earliest as recorded by history; present from the beginning; primitive. Of peoples, plants, and animals: inhabiting or existing in a land from earliest times; strictly native, indigenous.
Also, the more accurate adjective is "indigenous" or "aboriginal", not "native".
This is working on the same principle as the euphemism ratchet or Negro->Black->African-American. It has no information content.
Except that the term native is overloaded; it can refer to an individual (as in "native speaker") as well as to a population, with different implications. I'm a native of my country, i.e., not an immigrant, but I'm not a member of the continent's native population.
The difference is typically clear from context, but not always.
But while I can't comment on what speakers of Amazonian Brazilian Portuguese call various kinds of people, I can point out that the term "American" used in the United States refers to anyone in America, not just the European-descended people in America.
Interestingly enough, the United States of America is the only country in the world with "America" in its name. Not that it's any justification--I believe the Greeks have a similar bone to pick with Macedonia.
None of the States used America, but just as separate countries created the Union, wait European Union the United States used of America to designate where they where. Now in 200 years people might still think of France and Germany as separate countries, but I don't think the distinction is going to last that long.
I'm not entirely sure of common usage, but my anecdotal experience is that people in Latin America refer to the people of the US as "North Americans," while in Spain I've heard what would translate as "United Statesian."
Charles C. Mann (the author that the OP quotes) mentions this in the introduction to 1491 (the book that the essay is excerpted from). He says he calls the native Americans "Indians" because most of them prefer that label.
(Of course, when possible, it's better to use a more specific name. I was irritated to discover that my son's Cub Scout manual uses the phrase "American Indian Sign Language" to refer to a language that was really only used by the Plains Indians.)
Interesting. I can't say I know Indian history thoroughly, but from what I know India never had slavery like America did. There were other social mechanism that were used to exploit human labor in India though.
can you elaborate on what people you are referring to here when you say they came to India and called themselves Indians.
AFAIK, there is a lot of controversy surrounding the history 'Aryan invasion of India', but I haven't come across any history text that suggests that Aryans turned the natives into slaves.
"I asked seven anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians if they would rather have been a typical Indian or a typical European in 1491. None was delighted by the question, because it required judging the past by the standards of today—a fallacy disparaged as "presentism" by social scientists. But every one chose to be an Indian."