Help with "Native American" terminology

Vivian Conger Discussion

I recently submitted a proposal for a new course that I will teach in our first year seminar program in the fall.  It entails two Reacting to the Past games:  Forest Diplomacy, 1756-1757  and Greenwich Village1913: Suffrage, Labor, and the New Woman.  My question is about the former.  In the "official" description of the course, the author uses the word "Indian."   This is the comment I got from the committee that approved my course:  "The committee would like to note that Native Americans are called "Indians" in the description. We are curious about this word choice (when a more accurate/ politically agreed upon way to describe this population these days is Native American). Perhaps this is how historians talk about the past. But it is worth raising as a question and as feedback. "  I chose not to engage immediately since I was simply happy that they approved the course.  But now I'm  curious--and would like to respond to the committee since they chose to raise it as an issue.  Is it indeed a settled issue among historians that we don't use the term Indian and instead used Native American?  I've always understood that it is NOT settled and that "Indian" is an acceptable term, but I could certainly be educated by the experts in the field.  

Thanks in advance for your help.

Vivian

Vivian Bruce Conger, Associate Professor

Department of History

Ithaca College

8 Replies

Post Reply

Greetings!

I wanted to respond since I’ve had almost the exact same conversation regarding my “Imagining American Indians in Film” course. First of all, stick to your guns, as the committee is, in perhaps overly-simplistic terms, incorrect. It is a terminology in flux.

With that it mind, here are some concrete ways to respond.

I start by framing the conversation around the right of groups to choose their own terminology. This is written into the inclusive language policy at my institution, so I make sure to point to that.

In that sense, I always use national/tribal names when possible, deferring to the term preferred by the nation itself. For example, Dine rather than Navajo or Haudenosaunee rather than Iroquois. In moments when I need to refer to people more broadly, I use American Indian. On this I turn to a number of sources to defend that position. The first are American Indians themselves. While the opinion is not unanimous, high-profile individuals have made the case for keeping American Indian. Sherman Alexie is a particularly popular one. There are also larger connections to the history of American Indian activism that many Indian people want to preserve. Finally, there is a legal case for continuing to identify as American Indian, as this is the term enshrined in case law.

Sorry if this is more than you were looking for, but I thought it’d be helpful to share my own approaches.

I believe either term is acceptable, as is “indigenous peoples” or simply “Native,” although it is always preferable to refer to the tribe or community when possible.

It is my experience since becoming a historian in my second career that American Indians prefer to be called "American Indians" (after their tribal identification, of course). This comes from asking members, especially when I was a historian with the National Park Service and worked on many projects with tribal historians and other tribal members, as well as in my own research and writing, and the overwhelming response I received was "American Indian" was preferred almost to a man and woman. I am no longer with the NPS, but I understand the agency conducted a survey before compiling its style guide a few years ago, and the respondents overwhelmingly preferred "American Indian." While some answered "either" was "acceptable," many more expressed the view that they felt "Native American" was offensive, paternalistic and racist. When I asked a Cherokee colleague in @ 2003 or 2004, who had been the tribal historic preservation officer before coming to NPS, said, "if you were born here, you're a native American." Then he said "those who prefer 'Native American' generally fall into one of three categories: (1 ) those who work for the government; (2) those who work on university campuses; and (3) white people who claim to be 1/32 Cherokee." When I was working on the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration, 2004-2006, I attended a national conference on the topic, and the presenters were divided in their usage. All the Indian historians called native peoples INDIANS; while the only ones who used "Native Americans" were white academics. I understand the Associated Press style guide has recently dropped its insistence that "Native American" is the preferred term in light of other recent surveys.

Hi Vivian,

I would submit that it is far from a settled matter for a number of reasons. First and foremost, are the number of folks in this category who do not want to be called “Native American.” A large number of my Indian friends want to be called Indian. It is what they call themselves, it is what the law refers to them as, it is part of the name of the federal bureaucracy that provides services to tribes and reservations.

It also isn’t settled, however, because there are plenty of other appellations. “First Nations” is a term that has come into vogue, first in Canada, and now increasingly in the United States. Atlanticists are increasingly calling American Indians “Amerind” peoples, based on linguistic classification.

Finally, your committee makes a good point about how we speak of the past. We obviously do not want to embrace archaic language that is offensive to those who it references, but at the same time, to historicize a people and a time period often finds us using the terminology in the sources.

I hope that is somewhat helpful in considering the topic.

Best,
Josh Jeffery

University of Tennessee

Hello Vivian,

In case you're not already familiar with it, Robert Warrior authored a helpful essay on this topic titled "Indians" in the edited collection Keywords for American Cultural Studies (NYU Press, 2014).

While we're on the topic of offensive terminology, I'm far more concerned about the "Forest Diplomacy" moniker that you plan to use in your activity. As a specialist in American Indian history and early American history, who is also a Native person, I consider this to be a dated phrase that unnecessarily exoticizes that practices of diplomacy that were taking place among tribal nations and between tribal nations and colonial powers. James Merrell's 2014 essay "Second Thoughts on Colonial Historians and American Indians" (WMQ, 2012) does critical work reminding us of the power the terminology we use in our teaching and our writing about Native peoples, and the biases that are often embedded in these terms.

Best wishes with your new course,
Alyssa Mt. Pleasant

University at Buffalo (SUNY)

In my edition of The Dividing Line Histories of William Byrd II of Westover (Chapel Hill: UNC Press for the Omohundro Institute for Early American Culture and History, 2013) I used the term "Indians" in accordance with the "Guide for Writing About Virginia Indians and Virginia Indian History" issued by the Virginia Council of Indians in 2008. I am aware that a controversy exists concerning the terminology, but wherever possible I think it is appropriate to adopt the usage preferred by indigenous people themselves. Several nations have published their own preferences, and it may be possible to locate such a document pertaining to the indigenous people concerned in the Forest Diplomacy program.

Have you contacted the game author, Nick Proctor? He is a knowledgeable historian, and there is probably a reason he used that terminology in the game. Usually RTTP games try to be as accurate to the historical setting as they can. This can lead to some antiquated terms being used (but there are limits-- no actual slurs are allowed!), but usually the game book explains why that decision was made. Nick's email is nick.proctor@simpson.edu

I have used that game, btw. It's a very good tool for teaching about that period!

All,

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for all your help with this issue. I gathered all your comments and sent them along to the chair of our ICSM program. No response other than him thanking me and saying the comments were interesting but at least he did pass them along to the entire committee. I thought the comments were great and I really appreciated the help. If nothing else, I have lots of material for setting up the game and having a deep, intellectual conversation with my students about terminology. What could be better?!

Vivian