Racist names, Racist Places

by Special Correspondent Jessica Yee

Savage. Squaw. Indian. Would we all agree that these are immensely derogatory names that should not be, in this day and age, still used to geographically locate places? Or even people, for that matter?

From the varying answers I’ve received when posing this question, it all really depends on who you ask and what it’s for. Percie Sacobie from the Maliseet Nation in New Brunswick, is currently lobbying the city council of St. Mary’s to change the name of “Savage Island”, located seven kilometres west of Fredericton, to something less demeaning to the Wolastoqiyik people.

He went to city council with historical documentation of its origin, and the full support of the Maliseet chiefs from Oromocto, Kingsclear, Tobique, Woodstock, Madawaska and St. Mary’s First Nations, only to be told that he has to submit some sort of formal application process, and maybe, just maybe, they might consider changing it.

The Wolastoqiyik people are recorded to have used Indian (as it’s locally referred to) or Savage Island as far back as 1762, when Surveyor General Charles Morris described it as “a place where the Maliseets held their annual council.” It was a place where disputes were settled and hunting grounds allotted to each family before they began their summer hunts.

Percie Sacobie is suggesting the island’s name be changed to “Eqpahak Island”, which means “at head of tide on river or inlet.”

This is quite a similar story to a recent number of name change requests, or challenges to the history of the seemingly racist names places have been given. In December 2000, the province of British Columbia passed legislation that removed the word “Squaw” from all public establishments where the word is used. Although the act of carrying out this legislation has been less than desirable, British Columbia followed suit from Saskatchewan, Alberta, Prince Edward Island and the Yukon, as well as a number of U.S. states who also passed similar legislation.

Yet there are some people who contest that “squaw” isn’t even an offensive word. They claim that this was an honorable word for women, before it was twisted around to mean something racist and degrading by the colonizers. Even if the word were ever to be reclaimed, it has certainly been tainted for good by its misuse.

Now take the word “Indian” for example. Although we’re not from India, although Columbus seriously got it wrong, and although many of our communities are starting to reassert their ancestral language rights, we still use it. This is an ongoing, decades-old word battle with folks from all across Turtle Island, many who say we’ve got “bigger” problems to worry about than what we’re being called, and that we’ve been using it for so long anyways, what’s the problem with it? (And yes I know that “Native” is also tumultuous word territory). In Canada, we have begun to use First Nations and Aboriginal, although depending on who you ask, even this isn’t cutting it, particularly the word “Aboriginal” since by government standards, it’s an assimilative term used to meld First Nations, Inuit, and Métis into one Indigenous funding pot, while one of us is bound to continuously lose out on getting culturally competent services.

If you asked me, naming is in fact important, but the language we are using is an even more troubling situation to assess. According to UNESCO, approximately 600 languages have disappeared in the last century and they continue to disappear at a rate of one language every two weeks. Up to 90 percent of the world’s languages are likely to disappear before the end of this century if current trends are allowed to continue. Within Canada and the United States, there are more than 750 First Nations with hundreds more languages and dialects, yet there is no official federal language in the US, and only English and French in Canada. Recent reports have also said that Cree, Ojibway, and Inuktitut are the three Aboriginal languages considered to survive right now in Canada.

I personally don’t like the word Indian myself so I try not to use it, but from an organizational perspective, this is a constant difficulty to render in “appropriateness” so people can self-determine what they want to be called (and if folks want to be called Indians – that’s fine by me). But let’s be clear, English itself is the language of the colonizer. While we struggle to find the words that will do us justice, in whatever context, I know that English will not always be able to do that for us, and perhaps this is where it becomes such a hardship to deal with. I often think that if I spoke my own language, Mohawk, fluently, I might be able to convey the sentiments I try so hard to come up with, since in my language, one word can have multiple meanings and connotations.

Thankfully there are many efforts being made to recover Indigenous languages worldwide, and my own community, with the Akwesasne Freedom School, has made considerable change so that our young people grow up totally immersed in the language and culture, with 9 year olds who now run circles around us, completely fluent in Mohawk. I think the greater issue lies within empowering people to continue to take all of these issues seriously, and particularly within the Aboriginal community, not to denounce one and other in the name of better “priorities” when one of us tries to actually do something about it.

Case in point: recently my partner who is Oneida was on his way back from a Pow Wow, when he asked the two youth he was travelling with what they would like to be called. He said “instead of Indian or Aboriginal, what do you want to be called?” It was an interesting question that made them think, since no one had really asked that before. My partner said “How do you want people to know who you are?” And they both replied “I want people to know that I’m Ihanktonwan Dakota and if they don’t know what that means, I’ll explain it to them”. This was proceeded by a conversation on how the youth felt it was important that their Nation be known and that it was cool for other people to know what it’s really all about, and actually about time that they did.

We definitely do need to think of our impact on next generations if we are hoping for any sort of true reclamation or sustainability. Like many other people, I remember growing up and not really being into my culture, but now at 23, I am so proud to be Mohawk and if I ever have children, I want to raise them with the fundamental understanding and recognition of their roots. When I talk to other communities, Native and non-Native, I usually begin my presentations by introducing myself in my language and saying that I’m proud to be Native! Some of our youth are rejecting the old world all together because of assimilation and the difficulty to balance walking in the new world as well, but this is our challenge and responsibility, to find middle ground for us to live on.

So while I agree that we do have so many other issues to deal with, in order to get to where we are trying to go; which is the comprehension and respect of our culture and sovereign peoples, it is important that we identify who we really are. In our Indigenous cultures, saying I’m Mohawk carries a lot more weight than just the word itself. It tells people where I come from, who my ancestors are, and the strength that I bring into my person every day because of who I am. And that’s just what I can tell you in English!

It seems that there is more public discourse on Native issues these days (albeit not the most positive or accurate information being disseminated) but if we are going to talk, we can at least try and get who and what we are talking about right.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. What we talk about when we talk about English. on 27 Apr 2009 at 2:14 am

    [...] Jessica Yee, at the usually interesting Racialicious: But let’s be clear, English itself is the language of the colonizer. While we struggle to find the words that will do us justice, in whatever context, I know that English will not always be able to do that for us, and perhaps this is where it becomes such a hardship to deal with. I often think that if I spoke my own language, Mohawk, fluently, I might be able to convey the sentiments I try so hard to come up with, since in my language, one word can have multiple meanings and connotations. [...]

Comments

  1. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:

    Good blog. Well, you can guess I am from India, and when we moved to the United States, I was confused why everyone called Native Americans “Indians” when they’re clearly NOT from India.

    when Americans asked me “what” I was, I’d reply, “Indian,” to which they would reply, “what tribe?” which really made me angry so often times as a child and teenager.

    when i was a child, my mother once bought me a cheap gold necklace from an American shop. It was modeled after a Native American princess, holding corns in her hand. I had no idea what it meant, but it was pretty so my mum bought me it. everyone at school, who knew I was from India, thought the pendant was a Hindu goddess. SIGH.

    as an Indian, I’m offended by white people’s usage of “Indian,” which is offensive for both South Asians and Native Americans. Especially that stupid baseball team, “Cleveland Indians.”

    Oh yeah, and when people find out I’m “Indian,” they would have this stupid look of confusion on their face and ask, “bindi or feathers?” What the… FUCK! First we Indians are mistaken as Native American, and now everyone bloody think we are Arab. God, I fucking hate people.

    anyway, before I started reading Racialicious, I had NEVER heard of the term “squaw” until I learned what it was.

  2. SerenityNow wrote:

    I took an Indian Law class with one of the foremost scholars (who is, himself, Native). My first question was on nomenclature. It seemed to kind of catch him off-guard, but I thought it was fundamental to approaching the course. He hinted at many of the points you raised here, though not nearly as thoroughly. What was difficult to swallow was that “Indian” is the preferred legal term, mostly because it always has been. Which gets back to your point about the “language of the colonizers…”

  3. Undercover Black Man wrote:

    There’s a good book about racially/ethnically inappropriate place names… “From Squaw Tit to Whorehouse Meadow: How Maps Name, Claim and Inflame.”

    A lot of “Nigger Hills” and “Nigger Creeks” on old maps as well.

  4. D.J. Danforth wrote:

    First the article is right on as we now live in the 21st century and these racist names need to be gone with already. Secondly it was very interesting to talk about culture with the youth in the vehicle at the time because they were so colonized that they didn’t know who called us “Indians” in the first place then when they learned about the true meaning of the word “Indian” they were totally not using the word at all toward on another. We need to educate our youth about who they are and where they come from. Jessica keep up the good work.

  5. Emmeaki wrote:

    It pisses me off when people bring up the fact that The Cleveland Indians, The Atlanta Braves, etc. are racist names and people who are not Native (for lack of a better term) make up excuses and try to justify these names.

    We wouldn’t put up with names like the Cleveland Negroes or the Atlanta Slaves in this day and age.

    (At least they’ve removed the name Injun Joe from more recent copies of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.)

  6. An African wrote:

    Hear, hear! It’s ridiculous how the colonized become the other. In some aspects many African experiences are similar especially where a sizeable white population was/is present like Zimbabwe, Kenya and South Africa. Indegenous culture becomes exotic and racial slurs are quaint. Not in all cases, but often.

  7. Jess wrote:

    I’m not thrilled with the term “Indian” but given that English is the language we are using it won’t ever be perfect, and I wonder if it might just have to be what gets used — or some variant thereof, like “Native.” (I try to use the latter). Some of the ambivalence comes from the fact that “Indian” got reclaimed somewhat back in the 70s.

    I mean, I spent a lot of time talking to Native people, and I made a point of referring to them by their tribal identities where possible, but the word “Indian” got used in so many Native-run organizations… maybe its a generational thing?

    When I was spending more time on the subject “Fourth World” was in vogue, but that too seems to have passed out of use.

    Anyhow, the point is, we’re speaking English and using it and nothing will ever satisfy everybody. In a perfect world everybody would be called by their native names, but we’re not in a perfect world.

    A lot of other names for people are “colonizers” names, after all. Hungarians call themselves “Magyar” and there is probably no direct connection between the Huns and Magyars but every other European language uses some variant of “Hungarian” even if it is strictly speaking, wrong. (The Hungarian people were conquered/ colonized by the Romans and later the Austrians — there’s a whole other discussion you could have there).

    “German” is a derivation of a Latin (remember, the Romans were conquerors/colonizers at the time) word that has little resemblance to what the Germans call(ed) themselves.

    Just about every African nations’ name is a colonizer’s name — many are French (Cote d’Ivoire) or derived from Arabic (Algeria), and a few are British or Portuguese, and the same is true in South America.

    So whatever name for a people in whatever language is appropriate can get dicey, at least in terms of making sure we’re all understanding what we’re talking about.

    After all, Mohawk itself IIRC is a word from another Native group entirely — growing up in New England we gave credit to the Narragansett for most of the Native words and names that passed into English. (I believe the original term in Mohawk would be related to Kanienke? [sp.?] but I don’t know for sure, somebody enlighten me if you know).

    I’m not against changing a lot of geographical names like “Squaw valley” — I can certainly understand there why it could and should be done if the local people feel it necessary. That seems pretty basic to me and never understood why it would be controversial.

    More interesting (to me, being a language nerd) is the disappearance of Native languages, which is an important thing to address and prevent. I think the revival of Hebrew as a modern language can offer a lot of insight here — and ideas for how to do it.

    (For the non-Jews, Hebrew was not a spoken language for some 2,000 years, probably more, as by the time of Jesus most Jews spoke Aramaic or Greek [if you were richer]. Hebrew was only used in religious rites, and by the time people tried reviving it they basically had to invent words for stuff that wasn’t in the Torah).

    Irish Gaelic and Welsh have had some success as well, no?

    Either way, language preservation is an important goal — I’d hate to see many more disappear. And I’d love to see more funding for revival programs.

    I don’t buy the Sapir Whorf hypothesis that different languages express concepts that another can’t express (the old saw that Inuit has 200 words for snow is just wrong) but that doesn’t make it any less important to keep them around. If for no other reason than they shed a lot of light on how humans developed language and the shapes it can take, and how people conceptualize grammar and the like.

    Then there’s the connection to culture that is very important to have in and of itself.

  8. RCHOUDH wrote:

    Great post. I agree 100% with racist names/places being replaced with something that affected groups can self-identify with. Another term I found offensive was the phrase “Indian country” which I remember coming across when reading soldiers’ accounts of their time spent in Iraq during the war.

    I later discovered that “In U.S. military slang, Indian country is any area where troops can expect to encounter armed opposition, a usage that became popular during the Vietnam War”. It doesn’t sit well with me because of the implied racial connotations (civilized American (presumably white) soldiers being attacked by non white savages). Lately I’ve seen this phrase replaced with the geographically specific “Taliban country” which implies a lawless and violent region/sigh.

  9. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Publishers have removed the name “Injun Joe” from “Tom Sawyer”? Really? Have they also removed the word “nigger” from “Huck Finn”? Bowdlerizing the works of a major American writer would be big news, if true. Give us more information about this, please.

    Some thoughts on what Indians prefer to be called:

    http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2009/04/indians-prefer-identification-by-tribe.html

    http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2009/03/indian-term-dying-out.html

  10. Tawa Witko wrote:

    Hey Jess, great blog!!!! I guess the main thing is to keep talking about these issues so that the next generation that goes through will know the truth and speak it often. I believe if we can do this then my great grandchildren will be able to say to the “what are you?” question a resounding CROW, LAKOTA & PIMA

  11. Kevin wrote:

    Thanks for the informative and passionate post on the racist nature of “Indian” places. I thought I would throw out another suggestion to replace the use of “Indian” or “Native” since it seems neither of these are adequate. In Guatemala, we have 23 different ethnic groups, each with their own language and dialects. Although I try my best to refer to each by their self-determined named, i.e. Chu’j, K’iche, Mam, etc, the Spanish term used for those-people-who-were-around-before-conquistadores is “Indigenas” or in English, “Indigenous.” I think this term notes the specific sense of belonging and ownership prior to colonization without confusing connections to a homonym referring to Hindustan.

  12. Eunice wrote:

    Great blog! Reminds me of how I prefer to refer to myself as my ethnicities’ names (Urhobo and Igbo) rather than Nigerian. I tell people that before 1861, “Nigeria” didn’t exist. In fact, it didn’t even have boundaries. Ethnic boundaries, definitely, but not national.

    When people hear these colonizers’ terms, they tend to lump, lump, lump. It irritates me because in my case, people think Nigeria is this monolithic country, where we speak ONE language. The last time I checked, there were over 100 ethnic groups with their different languages, not counting regional dialects.

    If someone asks me my nationality, I tell them “Nigerian-American”.
    If they ask what I am, I tell them I’m Igbo and Urhobo. “Nigerian” is too small a term to describe me.

    I definitely share the sentiments. :)

  13. Samia wrote:

    I used to be pretty indignant about the use of the word “Indian” to describe Native individuals, but then someone pointed out that some prefer the term “American Indian” because “Native American” feels too academic. And it’s kind of just another term that’s been slapped on indigenous people.

    Everyone has their own preference, and I try to respect that in each situation.

  14. Erica wrote:

    It’s an uphill to strive to use correct terms in conversation as much as possible, especially when somebody asks, “Oh, you mean Indians?” and I have to blink, pause to convey that they have rudely interrupted, and explain, “no, I mean the people who lived in America before Columbus came, not people from India” and then continue. But it’s worth it, because it often makes people pause and think, and hopefully reorient their use of language.

    I would like to ask, though, what’s considered the “most appropriate” term in America? I’ve never heard anyone in this country use First Nations; Native American seems to be in the most widespread usage (aside from the obviously-incorrect term Indian). I honestly don’t know, and would like to learn so I can use it in future.

    @Emmeaki — We wouldn’t put up with names like the Cleveland Negroes or the Atlanta Slaves in this day and age. So true. I plan to shamelessly borrow this sentence next time the discussion warrants it :)

  15. Luis wrote:

    I’m all for changing the names of places (it’s not like they were always called that, place names change all the time). This idea of being beholden to tradition is ridiculous, with the few exceptions where indigenous names were preserved none of these names existed for more than 400 years. If Squaw Valley was a 2,000 year old place name, then we could negotiate.

    As for changing “Injun Joe,” I don’t agree with that. I generally don’t agree with sanitizing literature. People need to read books the way they were written and understand the context. Tom Sawyer was written when it was written and glossing over that historical reality is irresponsible. Just because a cherished work is racist doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be read and neither does it mean it’s racism should be excused or ignored.

  16. NancyP wrote:

    I have one comment about name-changing. Pronunciation guides will be needed for many of the names, if you don’t want non-indigenes mangling them. Perhaps do a sound file of the correct pronunciation and email it to local media before the official change, so people don’t develop bad habits (well, some people will still mangle the name).

  17. j.ceasless wrote:

    The question of how to refer to First Peoples is an intriguing one. The canonical PC signifier is ‘Native American.’ However, I’ve had multiple First People tell me that that is stupid, as “anyone born here is native to here now” (paraphrase). Also, the most I’ve ever heard the word ‘Indian’ was hanging around First People.

    Obviously as you can see here I prefer to use First People. I like the primacy of ‘First’, and using it (I hope) conveys that I have thought about the issue before and am trying my best (since it is rather rare, it seems unlikely to be taken as merely being PC for PCness-sake–my point is to convey respect in my language choices).

    It reminds me of when people say “Oh, it’s not a buffalo, it’s a bison.” Actually, both those names are colonial signifiers, neither has a coherent claim for being “more correct” than the other. I choose buffalo because it is one degree less colonized, having not been subjected to the clinical philology of the reductive, life-neutral Western scientific mind.

    Great to see some Native issues here, BTW. Perhaps we will get some analysis of the PBS specials that are broadcasting currently?

  18. Bagelsan wrote:

    I choose buffalo because it is one degree less colonized, having not been subjected to the clinical philology of the reductive, life-neutral Western scientific mind.

    …could you expand on this? I don’t get the difference. Is “bison” offensive or is that just a personal preference thing?

    Regarding the “Injun Joe” thing, is it being replaced by “Native American Joe” or something? Or just “Joe?” …censoring it *any* way seems like a terrible idea (good way to remove any kind of teachable moment in the classroom) but I was curious what flavor this particular sanitation had.

  19. The Elahater wrote:

    “I think the greater issue lies within empowering people to continue to take all of these issues seriously, and particularly within the Aboriginal community, not to denounce one and other in the name of better “priorities” when one of us tries to actually do something about it. ”

    very well-put and a great attitude to keep in mind for any community that is struggling to empower its members — we should keep a common vision in what we’re trying to accomplish, but supportive of others’ efforts and never impede them.

    Some other folks have brought up examples of indigenous peoples in other countries. I know in Panama, for example, the Ngöbe Buglé people call themselves “Ngöbe Buglé,” which I believe means “people.” To call them “Guyami,” the language of the conquistador, is seen somewhat derogatory in nature. However in Costa Rica, the same tribe calls themselves Guyami. I know in Panama indigenous peoples have more legal rights and sovereignty than in other countries (the Kuna Yala people supposedly have the most legal rights or any other indigenous group in the world). My point in all this? Tribes should have a right to dictate how they want to be identified, and HOW they are identified reflects their standing in the greater world. Whether those identifiers came before or after they received more rights is kind of moot point to me.

    Let’s also not forget how, in nearly a single generation in North America, so much was lost by pulling children away from their families and putting them into “schools” where they were beaten if they were caught speaking their mother tongues, where they were taught that they were “savages” and had to be “re-educated” on how to be a proper human being. A lot of this was accomplished by stripping that pride of who they were away from them through the severe but also through the subtle, like changing their names, their tribal identities, etc. So starting a conversation on restoring what rightfully belongs to these tribes–the story of their lives, their families, their ancestry, everything that Jess says her identity as a Mohawk tells us– is a part of the healing of a very painful history. And certainly more important than attachment to a football team name.

  20. j.ceasless wrote:

    Since it might not be obvious from what I’ve said, I prefer to address people by their own language, (often the word for ‘people’ ) if I am invited to do so by their sharing. When in Olympia WA I call “Mt. Rainier” Tahoma regardless of the conversational context. My contact with Puget Sound FP was relatively minimal, but if I had been around them I would have asked if it were okay to use this name Tahoma in preference to its more common name and adjust my actions according to their opinion. Is it appropriation or respect? I personally hate the idea of calling something sacred by some white dude’s surname.

  21. jceasless wrote:

    @Bagelsan

    To me it seems that Whiteness often attempts to detach things through renaming. The ultimate colonized name for a thing is its emotionless scientific name. I don’t call ravens by their Latin names, or do I? Not only is ‘bison’ (from sp. Bison bison) clinically detached by its very conceived-in-a-lab-verified-by-a-committee (all white), it represents a later generation of detachment than buffalo (which is what the white people called them when they slaughtered 65+ million in no more than 30 years; the goal was literal genocide of the buffalo, only the clan in Yellowstone survived outside of a select few white breeding corrals; from there has been seeded other herds, but the clan itself is trapped by a multimillion dollar ‘InterAgency Management Plan’).

    Also the shortening of their name from three rolling syllables to two sharp quick ones represents another form of detachment. ‘Buffalo’ is not nearly as beautiful as the Lakota word ‘tatanka’, but its a far shade better than ‘bison’, imo, and in no small part because it preserves a sense of motion across three syllables. I would use the Lakota word if it were suggested to me by people of multiple plains tribes. Until then ‘buffalo’ is the less colonized (imo, obviously) option to speak with a universal enough context not to offend anyone. Similar to the dilemna of how to say ‘Native American’ in a timely and liberating way, the signifier ‘buffalo’ being the best option indicates a hole in the language. When in doubt, there is always the handsign.

    Whew, I wasn’t expecting all that to come out, hope it explains my position a bit.

    @The Elahater

    Good point re: the empowering nature of language and the words that are used to signify. The nature of word choice is inherently political and psychosocial at the same time. While I disparage the nature of Western renaming in the context above, I also recognize the awesomeness of the ability to modulate discussion by bringing in more appropriate words and phrasings.

  22. j.ceasless wrote:

    Dang I forgot to post this link in here, which reflects the confused etymology of not only ‘buffalo’, but ‘bison’ as well. Bison bison is some how derived from the German noun Wisent for an all-but-extinct wild species that somehow survived a thousand years of ‘The King’s Woods’ and expanding civilization and still exist today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisent).

    There is a lot more to human history then what is sold for knowledge these days. Shake of the head to that.

    Anyway, the Buffalo Book ([google] http://books.google.com/books?id=7iQdJQAACAAJ) has the French word bufalo originating in N. America upon French contact through their Louisiana. The woods were full of bison in 1491 everywhere but over the Cascades on the West Coast and some parts of the Southwest, and the marsh in the Gulf of Mexico south (would love a better name for that water-body, btw). So the word appears in Africa after the French have already incorporated it as a signifier earlier on in their ‘adventures’ in N. America (though credit to the French for being the least genocidal, interventionist and slavery-obsessed of the three colonial powers, insofar as that is an accomplishment notwithstanding). I will have to find a copy of this book so I can cite that, right now I’m speaking from memory.

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=buffalo&searchmode=none

    Just one of many etymologies I’ve seen, this one says buffalo originates in 1588, but that would have been decadeds after first contact with French explorers in N. America. Maybe I’m missing something? Scroll a bit for ‘bison’; it comes from a ‘European bison’ that looks much the same and probably played a similar (huge) ecological role in pre-invasion, post-glacial Europe. Note that it attributes the Wisent to the aurochs of legend, which would make sense in allegorical timelines of Indo-European invasions that we have available to us (the first horse-herding invasions began in 13,000 BC; that’s a lot of thousands of years ago). Though there is another species of cattle supposedly attributed to the aurochs (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/22/nazi-bred-super-cows.html) I believe there is significant research that can assert that the species in that story were a herded species brought into play in the European Peninsula with the first Indo-European invasion. This sounds like a good thing to put together more concretely. But I am Not talking out of my ass here, either. I have a clear memory for these kind of things, as reading them changed my perceptions of reality at a more basic level than most experiences.

    Okay, apparently I can go on forever about buffalo so I will shut up now 8)

  23. Ruchama wrote:

    Really interesting discussion.

    I was at the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian a few months ago. It’s arranged interestingly — there are a bunch of big rooms, each with a certain theme, and within each room are little alcoves and inlets which each show and tell about how a particular nation has or does stuff related to that theme. One of the rooms has the theme of People Today, or something like that. One of the exhibits focused on a Mohawk group, and had a lot about the schools teaching kids the language. One part of the exhibit was a bunch of video screens where they’d asked a bunch of different people, from little kids to very old people, a bunch of questions, and then showed their answers on the screens. One of the questions was something like, “What do you want to be called?” and just about everybody had a different answer.

    That room also had a big exhibit at the center which was essentially asking the question of whether it’s OK to have a museum like that at all — should there be museums of people who are still living cultures? I didn’t get a chance to look as much at that exhibit as I wanted to — the museum was closing — but one thing I remember seeing was a photo of a Native American performance artist who’d made an “exhibit” of himself by getting a nineteenth-century museum display case and lying in it, naked, with little tags pointing to each of his scars and explaining what they were from.

  24. m. wrote:

    The following is just my personal opinion (and I feel it’s important to state that because once one Indian speaks, people get the idea that they’re the spokesperson for all Indians):
    Most (if not all) Native people prefer to be called what they are – i.e. Hopi, Dine, Odawa, etc. As far as terms like ‘Indian’, ‘Native American’, ‘Indigenous’/'Aboriginal’ and ‘First Nations’ go, I appreciate it when outsiders try to address us in polite ways, but I don’t think it’s really up to them to also decide which of these terms is “correct” when it comes to us Native folks identifying ourselves. I’ve actually had white and other non-Native people attempt to educate me on why I shouldn’t call myself an Indian (yeah, because I’m *that* stupid), it’s pretty hilarious – especially when they tell me how offended I should be by words like ‘Indian’. For some, ‘Indian’ may not ring nicely, but neither does ‘Indigenous’ or ‘Native American’. (”I’m an Indian before I’m an American.”) I think ‘First Nations’ sounds a bit snotty, and ‘First Peoples’ is just awkward – something that only an outsider would say (kind of like ‘Indigenous American’). I don’t know.
    If someone ever calls me a squaw, though, I’ll kick their ass.

  25. j.ceasless wrote:

    After double-checking some of my premises I find less evidence that the first French encounter was before 1588. I still swear that this was an assertion made in the Buffalo Book, unless I misread it at the time :(

    Either way, neither signifier is sufficient. That is, if to refer to something sacred should be done with a sacred name, neither ‘buffalo’ nor ‘bison’ suffice. Sorry for the multiple posts, but as you can see its a bit of a trigger for me. I hope it wasn’t too tangential to the discussion–if it was please say something.

  26. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Re “the obviously-incorrect term Indian”: The term “Indian” isn’t incorrect, much less obviously incorrect. Since the vast majority of American Indians call themselves American Indians, it’s correct for them. As in most cases, we should let the people themselves choose what they want to be called, and they’ve chosen “Indian.”

    This isn’t that complex an issue, friends. “America” referred to South America before it referred to the United States of America, but we’re not talking about renaming the country. Georgia was a Eurasian country before it was a US state, but we’re not talking about renaming the state. In case you didn’t know, words gain new meanings over time.

    Again, see the links I posted for a discussion of this issue. And I’m reviewing PBS’s “We Shall Remain” series in my blog, by the way.

    http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2009/04/quality-of-after-mayflower.html

  27. Erica wrote:

    @Rob — The term “Indian” isn’t incorrect, much less obviously incorrect. Since the vast majority of American Indians call themselves American Indians, it’s correct for them. As in most cases, we should let the people themselves choose what they want to be called, and they’ve chosen “Indian.”

    The only reason I used “obviously incorrect” is that I know a lot more Indian Americans, who are “obviously” Indians, than I do American Indians. Poor choice of words, my apologies; and thank you (and also m.’s comment) for the discussion.

  28. little mixed girl wrote:

    one thing i’ve always wanted was to learn about local native american culture/language along with my regular school studies.

    you can’t bring back the people that were killed when the europeans came over, but at least we can teach future generations to respect, etc.

  29. Ruchama wrote:

    “one thing i’ve always wanted was to learn about local native american culture/language along with my regular school studies.”

    My elementary school did a bit of this. In third grade, our social studies curriculum was learning about towns and cities all over the world. We learned about the general things that every town or city has — places to live, a government, schools or other places to learn, things to eat, places to buy and/or trade stuff, and so on — and then spent a few weeks each on a bunch of different cities and towns, learning about how that place did all that stuff. Two of the places we looked at were a Hopi village and a Pueblo village. (The others that I can remember were Nairobi, Hong Kong, someplace in Hawaii, London, and then last, we looked at our own town.)

    In fourth grade, which was New Jersey history year, we learned a bit about the Lenni Lenape, but unfortunately, all I can remember now is that they lived in longhouses.

    There actually was a tribe, the Ramapough, still living pretty close to us, but when I was in elementary school, almost nobody white in our area actually acknowledged them as Native American. (Some of my friends’ parent who grew up in the area still referred to them as Jackson Whites, and even when I was in high school in the late nineties, most of what I heard about them was “They’re dangerous, and they have shotguns, so don’t go up to Stag Hill.” Sometimes, drunken high school kids would dare each other to go up to Stag Hill and egg or TP the houses or something, as a sort of test of “bravery.”

    (Hmm. I just checked google a bit to see if I could find out why the tribe is spelled Ramapough while the mountains they live in are spelled Ramapo. Didn’t find anything, but wikipedia quotes a bunch of older sources which variously spell the tribe as Ramapough, Ramapaugh, Ramapo, and Ramapoo, while pretty consistently spelling the mountains as Ramapo.)

  30. Cherie wrote:

    Wow Rob Schmidt, way to detract from what Jessica and M. were actually saying and do some of your self-serving blog promotion.

    You are an outsider and there you go trying to say what’s right and wrong for “Indians” to be called.

    You are not an Indian – so please, how would you know? And furthermore, don’t assume to know because you aren’t.

    Why can’t you just support their statements of self-determination?

  31. Jadey (aka Carolyn) wrote:

    I always wonder about the (mainly white) people I’ve heard argue that these kinds of names “have tradition” and “don’t mean that”–why claim something has a history if you’re going to ignore what that history is? Of course, I wouldn’t be surprised if very few people complained when Berlin, Ontario changed its name to Kitchener, Ontario, circa WWII. ‘Cause, you know, tradition and new meanings and all.

    Identity and self-determination go hand in hand. The generic terms necessarily bad or useless (I go with First Nations generally, but there are pros and cons and I won’t stick to it on principle if I know someone prefers another term or it’s not appropriate) , but it’s also not this Herculean task to talk to someone about their own identity, the community/society they belong to, in whatever way it is defined. I mean, it’d generally be considered rude to ignore someone’s individual given name, like deliberately spell it differently or replace it, or not even try to learn it in the first place. I think this logic extends to other aspects of one’s identity.

    Heck, I think the ability for Metis, First Nations, and Inuit people to be able to discuss, debate, determine AND disagree(!) about their own “nomenclature” is pretty darn important! Naming is a form of control, and the source is important.

    (Sorry about the name change! I realized I was using a different handle on other blogs, and I want to be consistent.)

  32. pm wrote:

    I have several times seen people (on the web) being told off (by folk claiming to be American Indians) for saying ‘native American’ instead of ‘American Indian’. The argument being, apparently, that the former is an anodyne ‘official government’ term which makes no sense (anyone born in the US is a native American).

    I have to say that makes sense to me, the former term does smack of polite official government box-ticking while the latter seems to have more political associations (e.g. American Indian Movement). So that’s what I use. Does anyone have a definitive answer?

    ‘First Nations’ might be good, but outside North America, at the moment, if you say that nobody will know what you are talking about (and, outside the American context, does it strictly make sense? “First American Nations’ I suppose it would be – or does that exclude Canada?)

  33. PatrickInBeijing wrote:

    Great post, and mostly great discussion. I’ve learned a lot.

    I should call people what they tell me to call them. Seems pretty simple (they decide, I use the term).

    Renaming is a great concept, and while we’re at it, why not rename places that are named after the worst villains (hmmm, maybe that is too hard to decide??), removing their names from places as if they were heroes….

  34. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    In case you missed what I wrote, Cherie, I’ll repeat it:

    As in most cases, we should let the people themselves choose what they want to be called, and they’ve chosen “Indian.”

    To reiterate the obvious, this has nothing to do with what I believe. I’m not saying *I* think Indians should be called Indians, I’m saying THEY think that. If they change their minds and opt for “First Nations” or “NovaMundians” or whatever, I’ll support that too.

    I “know” what they think because I’ve visited dozens of Indian reservations, talked to thousands of Indians, and read thousands of articles and books by Indians. Not that this is necessary to understand the point. Just look at what Indians call their own community: Indian country, not Native American country.

    As for being an outsider, that’s true, although I work for a Native-owned business and write for a Native-owned publication. And Jessica is an outsider to the 560-plus American Indian tribes she doesn’t belong to. You know, the ones who call themselves Indians. Other than singling me out from Racialicious’s other commenters, most of whom are also non-Natives, what’s your point?

    If Jessica and M. don’t want people to question their statements, they probably shouldn’t post them here. I’m under the impression that this is a discussion forum, not a cheerleading forum. If I’m wrong about that, feel free to correct me.

    Back to the original question. We still call the two tropical island groups the East and West Indies. Asian Indians live near one group of islands and American Indians live near the other. This doesn’t seem especially strange to me. No more strange than, say, naming New Mexico after Mexico even though it’s not Mexican and no Mexica Indians live there.

  35. Sarita wrote:

    This is a really interesting discussion. Similar to SerenityNow, I am currently in law school taking a class called “Indian law”, referring to the American legal term “Indian” (since this is how the US government referred to the people who held this land before they took over and reaped all hell).

    I was surprised too that the class was called “Indian Law” but we spent the first day discussing why this was, in my professor’s opinion, both as a member of a tribe and as a prominent scholar. Regardless of how anyone feels about using the term”Indian”, the consensus among those who practice law, as well as many tribal councils, is that it is fine with the term because it is through this term that they have been able to broaden jurisdiction in the US. In the legal field, the term Indian is so deeply ingrained in its discourse, I don’t know if it would even be possible to change the terminology.

    So, I guess my question, is how do you walk the fine line between “reclaiming” a term/a name and using it to gain advantages, versus not using the “colonizer’s language”?

  36. m. wrote:

    Checking this blog again, I just realized that I forgot to mention how much I appreciated this post. How rude. I am a relatively new reader, and I hope to see more of Jessica Yee’s writing in the future!
    I’d like to second the writer’s and Cherie’s comments re: self-determination and respect. It’s more polite for outsiders to ask before they assume. Never judge one Indian based on past interactions with another or because of something you heard from an acquaintance, read in a book or learned in a class. Also, to basically reiterate what the youths quoted in the post were saying (“I want people to know that I’m Ihanktonwan Dakota and if they don’t know what that means, I’ll explain it to them”) and what I typed in my first comment: our nations/bands/tribes, languages, cultures and traditions are vastly different (not to mention, very important to us) and deserve to be acknowledged as such.

  37. BeccaTheCyborg wrote:

    Whoa. It is weird to see my home city referenced in a blog that isn’t based out of here.

    I’m sorry to say that this is the first I’ve heard of this situation, but I’ll see if I can’t help make some noise about it.

    I hate seeing places with slurs as names. I know there are more near here, though that’s the only one that immediately springs to mind.

  38. Mark wrote:

    I’m afraid assimilation is inevitable – in a few decades, the world will probably be broken up into English, Mandarin, Hindi and Arabic. Other languages will survive, but these four will become the global languages, simply because people will have to speak them to remain economically viable (actually, spanish might also become a global language – so that’s five).

    As the internet grows, as airplane travel becomes cheaper, as long range communication increases, all cultures will come under assault, and only the large ones will survive. It’s not about which culture is better or worse – the largest cultures will dominate as the world becomes “smaller” through technology.

    Already we are seeing this – in Australia, we’re pretty much the 51st State. Almost everyone around the world wears western-style business suits and drives Japanese cars. Indian software and cinema is becoming more mainstream, and eventually, there will be efficient, accurate computer translators which will mean that everyone’s books and movies will be able to be read by anyone.

    And cultures will merge. Differences will remain, but those cultures which remain will inevitably incorporate aspects of each other. It’s inevitable. You might as well try to turn back the tides. It’s sad but unfortunately it is true. Different cultures emerged because of distances between population centres. Those differences no longer exist.

    So – get out the English/Mandarin/Hindi/Arabic textbooks. We’ll all need them.

    And who knows? In 500 years we’ll probably all speak one language and follow one culture. And I doubt it’s going to be english.

  39. Mark wrote:

    I mean, think about it: the world is changing. The old ways of living are dying out. Old religions are losing their grip in many parts of the world. You have McDonalds in almost every country. That’s not going to change back. Almost all of our things are made in China, again, that’s not going to be reversible in the short term. We all build the same airports, wear the same suits, use the same mobile phone technology – as technology increases, what room is there for culture? As people live more affluent lives, dependance on community decreases.

    Technology will inevitably change and merge culture (if not outright erode it to dust). Look, kids in Beijing wear jeans and listen to their iPods. They like doing it. Their lives aren’t worse for it either. How many chinese students know about the old tales, the old traditions and styles of dressing? Very few, very few. And they don’t care about this “Death of culture” – they are rich and they are powerful now.

    The world has wonderful diversity and history. It has thousands of languages, each of which has unique ways of expressing how people feel about their lives and their world. Such diversity is precious.

    And inevitably doomed to extinction.

  40. Jessica Yee wrote:

    Actually Rob – I wouldn’t call myself an outsider – if you know anything about how the government refers to us in Canada – we’re still federally recognized as “Indians”, I still have an “Indian” status card, and we still have a department of “Indian” and Northern Affairs. I just don’t personally subscribe to that label, and I know plenty of Native folks in the US who don’t like it either. But if Native people want to be called Indians – no problem with me. I just think we should speak on behalf of ourselves.

    But what about those who don’t like it or don’t want to use it? Does their opinion count? What about the next upcoming generations? Are you talking to them also?

    PS. If you know anything about Akwesasne where I’m from, you will know that a border runs right through it – so I belong to both the U.S. and Canadian sides. That border is a colonial notion. Thanks.

  41. wendi muse wrote:

    great piece, jessica. the part about language made me get super emotional, at least in the sense that so many people do not have a connection with their ancestral language due to forced removal, purposeful destruction/assimilation, etc. powerful stuff.

  42. Safiya Outlines wrote:

    “How many chinese students know about the old tales, the old traditions and styles of dressing? Very few, very few”

    Mark – Have you asked them all? As that’s a pretty big assumption otherwise. Liking new things from other cultures doesn’t necessarily mean letting go of your roots.

    Great article Jess.

  43. BrownSkinLady wrote:

    I know this is an incredibly complicated issue, but I’m really interested in what role Indians (from or in India) have in distinguishing their names from First Peoples. I, like Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist, have frequently been confused with what ‘kind’ of Indian I am–which seems to be part of a larger pattern of micro-aggression Indians and other Desis in the US face in terms authentic citizenship. Granted, I firmly want to advocate the rights of First People who prefer to label themselves as ‘Indian’, but do I as a South Asian Indian ever get to say the term you want to use for yourself is offensive to my identity and endores a whole different system of racism/colonialism against me? I haven’t read much on the dialogue between South Asians and First People–though I know the informal conversations I’ve had with other South Asians has not been very… ‘nice’ to say the least– so I’d be REALLY interested if anyone had some links.

  44. EGhead wrote:

    You neglect to mention that calling native peoples (or aboriginals or…) ‘Indian’ is offensive to actual Indians.

  45. m. wrote:

    BrownSkinLady + EGhead: Do you think ‘Native American’ is really better? This is an already “loaded” topic, and it’s even worse that so many outsiders also have strong opinions about it – not that I’m saying you shouldn’t have an opinion (esp. since one of you mentioned that you are South Asian), but it makes it difficult on us “other Indians” because it’s like we have to satiate outsiders, as well.
    Not all of us call ourselves Indians because of the whole “Columbus thought he landed in India” theory. For those of us who grew up using/hearing/identifying with the word, what do you suggest we call ourselves, instead? Most people I know (myself included) cannot automatically adjust to going around calling ourselves something else…and then correcting ourselves if we don’t, as if we were somehow “wrong” in the first place.
    Anyway, this topic kind of detracts from what the post at hand is about – us “other” Indians (or, as many non-Natives seemed to have deemed proper, Aboriginal/First/Indigenous Americans). We can’t help that there may be people out there who are unable to distinguish between an Indian American and an American Indian, but anyone who were to meet one of us (a South Asian or an Indigenous American) in-person/see what we look like would have to have been living under a rock: aside from the fact that we identify ourselves differently (most of us Indigenous people either say what tribe/band/nation we’re from, or, if the person is someone who uses the word ‘Indian’ and they are having an exchange with a white/non-Native person they’ll sometimes say, “I’m AN Indian” rather than “I’m Indian”), we also do not have anything in common as far as phenotypes or “race” goes. (I’d hope that, by now, most non-Native people occupying North America would get this.)
    I realize that this is a “touchy” subject, and I’m sorry that it offends Indians that some (NOT ALL) of us have elected to refer to ourselves this way, but many of us Native folks see ourselves as “actual Indians”, too. I’m not implying that all of us like the word; many of us prefer to be addressed differently. But try telling my family or the elders on my reservation that they aren’t the “real” Indians – they’d probably be just as offended as you.

  46. Adrianna wrote:

    I’m happy they passed that law Jessica! I learned about the word squaw while visiting lake Tahoe . we were there a Kellogg conference for sustainable agriculture and the valley is named “Squaw Valley” many of the Native American attendees asked that it be changed. of course nothing was done. I hope that this law changes it soon. In Haiti Indigenous tribes go by the Awaraks and the Tainos. They mostly leave on Tortuga island, And other islands in the Caribbean. Our creole is filled with Taino words. But now the creole is being Americanized.

    @ Mark it may be true in . We don’t have MCdonald’s here in Haiti. But like most caribbean countries we are a mixture of so many other cultures our language, food and culture itself represents that. It make me sad , because now It’s very americanized. I doubt Vodoo is going to die out as a religion. It’s very prevalent in our society.
    @j.ceasless
    Really the french were less genocidal and slavery driven? I’m Haitian and I’d like to disagree so would Guadeloupe, La martinique, Cote d’ivoire ,Algeria, morocco, La reunion La polynesie francaise, Senegal, Guine Bisseau, Quebec. and the list goes on. Please don’t separate them from the other colonial powers they are the same. Please research french mercenaries and see how they are not as “Interventionist as the others” Also see the french movie Indigene. Read some Aime Cesaire and Leopold Senghor.