Indian

by Lewis McCammon

Most indigenous people have a go-to term that they use to describe or refer to themselves. Some of the most widely used terms today are “Native American”, “Native”, “First Nation”, “Indigenous”, “American Indian”, and “Indian”. Indigenous nations also have varying terms which they prefer for the political naming of their identity. These preferences come from a multitude of factors including, geographic area, national histories, and personal beliefs, influencing one's stance on the proper nomenclature. Each piece of nomenclature brings forward its own challenges and intrinsic diminishing manner, making it challenging to find an all-encompassing term. Begging the question, is it possible to create a blanket term that is inclusive of and justly represents the hundreds of diverse indigenous groups, as well as the millions of individuals within those groups. This point has led to a wide agreement among indigenous people that it is “most appropriate to use the names that specific tribal groups have for themselves” (Warrior) (Myaamia, Ojibwe, or Diné), or at least the names they have been come to be known by since colonization (Miami, Chippewa, or Navajo, respectively).

Although, as in this essay and others alike, there is some benefit in a term that refers to the indigenous people as a collective. In today's society, this allows Native scholars to discuss the similarities in history of many Indigenous groups, the triumphs, tragedies and all the times in between. Further, allowing for unified support in the constant fight for recognition, sovereign rights, and decolonization; which many indigenous groups are interested in. This essay focuses on the term “Indian”, its creation, its uses, its meaning, and how that meaning has changed over time.

The origin of “Indian” dates back to the 15 century when European colonizers used it to describe the original inhabitants of the “American” continent, as they thought they had arrived in the Indies of Asia, their intended destination. This confusion created “Indian” as a term of, “illusion, not a description of reality” (d’Errico). Despite this background, “Indian” has stuck and is rooted in today’s society. A far greater and long lasting impact stems from the irresponsible confusion of European colonizers; the term “Indian” is used interchangeably between American Indigenous nations and individuals from present day “India”. This dual-meaning has created a muddled state, where in certain situations, an individual will have to add in additional terms to distinguish themselves as “American Indian” or being from India. Building Indigenous identity on a term that can not even be our own, goes directly against the sovereign view of many tribes.

The term ”Indian” has been deeply ingrained into American society for hundreds of years. Since the very creation of the United States, brought about by the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Natives have been referred to through slurs surrounding the word “Indian”. This set the basis for U.S. citizens to create their singular, derogatory, stereotypical view of Native Americans. This reduction of Native Americans to an individual perspective prevents true expression of Native culture and identity.

Throughout colonial history, Indigenous attempts to comply, make treaties, and cooperate with European colonization have failed. One prime example of this was in 1864 when American troops attacked a Native camp, known today as the Sandy Creek Massacre. This slaughter of an estimated 230 Natives took place, “despite the American and white flags flying above the camp as instructed” (Sand Creek). Attempting to promote peace with the colonizers and comply with their controlling demands, the Cheyenne were met with violence. This displays how cooperation efforts have been met by colonizers throughout history. If we continue to cooperate with the use of “Indian” to describe us, a similar outcome may be in our future. 

The destructive use of “Indian” continued throughout the Boarding School years, when colonizers attempted to “civilize” “Indians”. In 1892, an infamous American speech was given which addressed the true intentions of residential boarding schools, to “kill the Indian in him” (Pratt). This ideology caused European colonizers to view Indigenous culture as a harmful ideology that needs to be eradicated. Additionally, in 1972 when the Chief of the Miami Tribe was arguing for the right of the Myaamia to sovereignty in Indiana, he referenced the everyday use of “Indian” to solidify his defense. In a newspaper article, he stressed that, “the names of both the state and Hoosier capital are derived from ‘Indian’” (Gilley). Today, many American citizens don’t even recognize the birthplace or inaccuracy of terms used in sports, education, or let alone an entire state. In the colonialist society it seems so simple and easy to call it “Indiana” without thinking about the creation, let alone implications of the use of that term.

Upon close inspection, this seemingly harmless nomenclature exemplifies how entrenched colonialistic terms are in our society. Even today, some of the best advocates for indigenous rights are forced to utilize the term, in policies that attempt to eliminate the “Indian”, such as Federal Indian Law, and in government agencies created by colonizers, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs claims to “enhance the quality of life...of American Indians” (BIA), an assertion that often seems hypocritical to many Indigenous people. Precedents such as these have combined to create a singular view of “Indians” in popular culture, which are “later made ‘reel’ in Hollywood…(by) current depictions of dark-skinned Indians riding horses on reservations” (Goeman). Here, Goeman demonstrates how the historic connotations and baggage of the term “Indian” still weigh on its use today. So, can the term “Indian” escape its deeply rooted, destructive past and become a term that accurately and justly refers to indigenous peoples?

In today's society, Indigenous people often struggle to introduce themselves, as we don’t know how to refer to ourselves in both a way that ignorant colonists would understand and one that is accurate. The blatant unwillingness of colonizers to refer to Natives in an accurate way, shows the violent past relations between Natives and Colonizers has not disappeared. The films, policies, and ... set to destroy us, show that colonizers see us as nothing more than “Indian”. Sometimes we try to display ourselves in the way we want to, commonly our traditional name or with our individual tribe, but “when those fail, the word ‘Indian’” (Amrov) is frequently used. This practice involves giving up and buying into the colonizer ideal to eliminate Native Americans. To continue our existence in the modern world, Indigenous people must come up with a common term that can be used to refer to ourselves.

The use of the term prior has “been declining in usage over the past several decades” (Warrior), although it is still a very familiar term. Contributing to this decline is the recent NDN movement that is sometimes used by Native Americans, as an Indigenous created shorthand to “Indian”. One example of the use of NDN is in a poem by author Billy-Ray Belcourt from the Driftpile Cree Nation; “In other words, where the heterogeneity of grief meets the singularity of death is the NDN experience.” (Belcourt) Here, “NDN” transforms “Indian” to an indigenous made term in order to draw a picture of what being “NDN” is like. This shows the creation of a new term that might be able to better represent a diverse group of Indigenous people.

However, the effort that goes into creating or finding a term that represents indigenous people as a collective tears apart indigenous groups and highlights differences, separating indigenous people from our/their similarities. While indigenous groups should work to find a term that unites us/them, this effort should occur rapidly, violently, and without tearing us/them further apart than European colonizers already have.

Author’s Note

In outlining the history of the term “Indian”, I hope to have expressed the uniqueness of the many diverse groups of indigenous peoples. As a member of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, there are specific parts of history that have shaped my view on the nomenclature used to refer to my people and to Indigenous people across the world. Particularly, the 2001 court case, MIAMI NATION OF INDIANS OF INDIANA INC v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. In which, the Miami Tribe of Indiana, which I was once a member of, fought for federal recognition. The court ruled “If a nation doesn't exist, it can't be recognized, … if it no longer exists, it has no rights,”(Miami v. U.S.), denying the recognition of this group of “Indians”. These “Indians of Indiana” are not “Indian” in the view of the federal government. Why is it that European colonizers are given the decision on indigeneity? This ideology allows the popularization and politicalization of a term that Indigenous people did not create. It is like saying you (Miami Tribe) are not even what we (European colonizers) have shrunk you to, you have failed to survive your own genocide, which can only be viewed as an attempt to completely destroy indigenous identity.

This fight for recognition is not a battle unique to the Myaamia, hundreds of tribes across the United States have to apply to be recognized, some have to constantly work to combat claims that deny their existence. In the case of the Miami Tribe of Indiana, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma later accepted many of its members, including my family, onto our/their rolls. Imagine rejoining a part of your nation, with people that you share a common ancestor with, that have been split into two groups due to the multiple forced removals of the 19th century, after the U.S. government has just decided that only half of you are “Indian”. Obviously, having “Indian” tribes apply for “Indian” recognition has some inherent contradictions. These contradictions highlight the confusion, hypocrisy, and harm the term “Indian” caused and continues to cause today.

Withstanding western colonization, my family has held on to enough language, tradition, and community, that I identify as an Indigenous person today. Is this statement really true? What if through the denied recognition attempt, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma did not accept my family into their/our tribe, would I still be Native American? As I come away from tribal gatherings, language camps, and the sense of community that they provide, I know that I am.

As a fair-skinned college student from a midwestern town and an active member of a proud tribal community, my experience as a mixed-race Native American walking in two worlds is an inescapable part of my journey. Unfortunately, as a result of slaughter, removal, and cultural elimination, this is not an uncommon reality among Indigenous people today. At events, relatives remind me to embrace my identity, never shying away from being Indigenous, no matter what color my hair and eyes are. Think of going to a family gathering and your cousin coming up to you and saying “you are my relative”. The use of the term “Indian” reinforces the willful misinterpretation that Indigenous people are who European colonizers say they are. In order to fight against the continued genocide, Indigenous people must create a term that allows us to stand together and embrace our similar histories.