As a member of Chapleau Cree First Nation, and as consultant who's worked in and with Aboriginal people my entire career, I think I have seen and heard all of the possible variations of terms that people use to describe us.
Do you sometimes wonder what in the world you should do when you want to talk to an indigenous/Aboriginal/native/Indian person? Do you ever worry about which term is acceptable in which circumstances? You're not alone. And here's why: there's no hard and fast rule, and no agreement among indigenous/Aboriginal/native/Indian persons about appropriate terminology.
So over the next few weeks, I'll be presenting a weekly, non-dogmatic, light-hearted lexicon for those of you who work in this arena and would like a primer on taxonomy. Please note that these are strictly my own opinions, offered here for your amusement and enlightenment. I am in no way an etymologist, anthropologist, linguist, historian, or scholar - just an Indian First Nation First Nations Aboriginal Indigenous writer interested in words and people.
Let's start things off with the Biggie.
Two weeks ago the community was abuzz with the news that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs would henceforth be knows as the Department of "Aboriginal and Northern Affairs". Thus we say farewell to one of the highest-profile misnomers used by the government.
This archaic term is still used in some official titles and names (Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, the American Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Cleveland Indians); and of course, the Indian Act is replete with the term as a legal word to describe us. But as a general rule, it's now out of fashion, shall we say.
As you likely know, the term is the result of bad geography. When Christopher Columbus arrived in North American mistakenly thought he had reached India, so he called the inhabitants Indians. (He was really in the Bahamas, and his first encounter was probably with the Taino people). So really, as Murry Porter says in a song, "Who found who?"
The term "Indian" was an error. But it became, and remains, part of America's cultural vocabulary. As the word was in use for such a long period of time, it's still often used when describing something old, such as, “it was down by that old Indian camp” or “there’s an old Indian graveyard by the tracks.”
And sometimes an individual will use that term themselves. An elder once told me, “I’m an old Indian now. That’s the word I’ve always used, so I’m going to keep using it.” That’s good enough for me.
The problem is, however that there are, in fact, other people called Indian. They're from India. In order to distinguish between Indian Indians from India and non-Indian "Indians" from North America, the peculiar phrase "Red Indians" was in vogue for a while, but has mercifully been retired, leaving us with an unfortunate legacy of cultural confusion, linguistic ambiguity, and a faint whiff of condescension.
OK, it’s all too confusing. But in general, I think we all agree it's time to move past a term that has accumulated so much unfortunate baggage.
Next Week: The OTHER N-word.
This archaic term is still used in some official titles and names (Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, the American Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Cleveland Indians); and of course, the Indian Act is replete with the term as a legal word to describe us. But as a general rule, it's now out of fashion, shall we say.
As you likely know, the term is the result of bad geography. When Christopher Columbus arrived in North American mistakenly thought he had reached India, so he called the inhabitants Indians. (He was really in the Bahamas, and his first encounter was probably with the Taino people). So really, as Murry Porter says in a song, "Who found who?"
The term "Indian" was an error. But it became, and remains, part of America's cultural vocabulary. As the word was in use for such a long period of time, it's still often used when describing something old, such as, “it was down by that old Indian camp” or “there’s an old Indian graveyard by the tracks.”
And sometimes an individual will use that term themselves. An elder once told me, “I’m an old Indian now. That’s the word I’ve always used, so I’m going to keep using it.” That’s good enough for me.
The problem is, however that there are, in fact, other people called Indian. They're from India. In order to distinguish between Indian Indians from India and non-Indian "Indians" from North America, the peculiar phrase "Red Indians" was in vogue for a while, but has mercifully been retired, leaving us with an unfortunate legacy of cultural confusion, linguistic ambiguity, and a faint whiff of condescension.
OK, it’s all too confusing. But in general, I think we all agree it's time to move past a term that has accumulated so much unfortunate baggage.
Next Week: The OTHER N-word.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please review our comments policy, posted here: http://ccg-ourtimes.blogspot.com/p/comments-policy.html
Comment Moderation has been enabled; your comment will be reviewed by the Editors before posting. Our kids, parents, spouses, friends and clients read this site. So please be nice.