Native American name controversy

The Native American name controversy is an ongoing dispute over the acceptable ways to refer to the indigenous peoples of the Americas and to broad subsets thereof, such as those living in a specific country or sharing certain cultural attributes. Much has to do with connotations more than with the meanings of the words. (The naming of individual ethnic groups, such as the Navajo, the Haida, or the Yanomami, is discussed in their respective articles.) The ongoing debate can provide a useful forum for raising awareness.

Many English terms have been used or considered for such purposes, such as American Indians (or simply Indians), Native Americans, First Nations, Indigenous Peoples of America, Amerindians, Amerinds, and more. However, none have found universal acceptance. Typical reasons for contesting a name are:

• ambiguity or accepted multiple meanings of the words used, like American or indigenous;
• prior use for a different set of people, as in the case of Indian;
• existence of unrelated common meanings, like native;
• conflict with prior legal definitions, like Aboriginal;
• sentimental attachment to a previous name;
• that the term is quaint or pejorative, as for Eskimo;
• resentment about having a name imposed by outsiders;
• presumed political implications of the name, as with Native;
• reluctance of individual groups to be referred to by a collective name;

and several others. Further complications arise when translating names between different languages, since even words that are closely related linguistically may have very different cultural loads in the respective speaker communities. "The People", "First Men" and "Original People" are the most common translations for various Indigenous American tribes.

In some countries, certain broad names have been defined by law, such as First Nations and Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. Even in those cases, there may be lingering debates on whether certain groups fit the legal definition or not, or whether the name or its definition are adequate.

Endonyms and exonyms

Endonyms and exonyms

People from an ethnic group generally wish to be called by the name they give themselves, if possible in their own language. This preference has gained importance recently as a means of avoiding ethnic discrimination.

Unfortunately, this principle applies poorly to large multi-ethnic groups, since different sub-groups often have incompatible preferences. Moreover, every natural language has traditionally ignored this principle, exerting its privilege to invent its own ethnic terms for other peoples. English is no exception, and uses German, Dutch, and Albanian, disregarding the self-appellations and preferences of those subjects. Not surprisingly, English names for the pre-Columbian Americans are largely assigned by tradition, and are not always accepted by the peoples themselves.

Meanings of basic terms

A major source of confusion and controversy is that many of the words that are or could be used in naming those peoples are inherently ambiguous or inappropriate.

Peter d'Errico of the Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts has an insightful and revealing essay that both overarching names, Native American and American Indian, can be useful for perspective on history and culture. d'Errico interviewed Charles Mann, author of 1491, in the course of which Mann pointed out a crucial change with respect to history, of which naming is something of a bellweather: that until the 1970s Indians were effectively seen as lacking agency, in social science terms. Indians do act, for better and for worse, in all the range of human and social behavior, in a sophisticated history. Indians are who they say they are, as well as the analyses of historians and scientists.

Indian

The term Indian is commonly thought to have been born of the misconception by Christopher Columbus that the Caribbean islands were the islands in Southeast Asia known to Europeans as the Indies, which he had hoped to reach by sailing West. Even though Columbus's mistake was soon recognized, the name stuck, and for centuries the native people of the Americas were collectively called Indians. (Comedian George Carlin, in his book Brain Droppings, asserts that this etymology is inaccurate—for effect—proffering as an alternative that the word is a corruption of the Spanish phrase "Una gente in dios", which Columbus used to describe the peoples in a letter or diary. This etymology is refuted.) Like the word origin, much of the use of the word has to do with connotation more than definition.

2. Of or pertaining to the aborigines, or Indians, of America; as, Indian wars; the Indian tomahawk. [1913 Webster]

2. One of the aboriginal inhabitants of America; — so called originally from the supposed identity of America with India. [1913 Webster]

WordNet defines Indian with respect to the Americas as:

1: of or pertaining to American Indians or their culture orlanguages; "Native American religions"; "Indian arrowheads" [syn: {Amerind}, {Amerindic}, {native American}] and n 1: a member of the race of people living in North America when Europeans arrived [syn: {North American Indian}, {American Indian}, {Red Indian}]

3: any of the languages spoken by Amerindians [syn: {Amerind}, {Amerindian language}, {American-Indian language}, {American Indian}]

The American Heritage Dictionary begins clearly enough that the word is "of or relating to any of the Native American peoples except the Eskimos, Aleuts, and Inuits", then adds a dense paragraph of "usage note", further referring to notes at American Indian, First Nation, and Native American, which, all together, are along the lines of this article.

Merriam-Webster adds to the WordNet definition that this often excepts the Eskimos (often referred to as the Inuit), adds that the word is especially an American Indian of North America and especially the U.S. (but therefore not exclusively), and urges compararison with Native American.

Some believe that the name has fallen out of use in the dominant culture of the West in the last few decades; partly because it belongs naturally to the peoples or nationals of India, and so its other use was inherently ambiguous. Other reasons, specific to North America, are discussed in a later section. All this said, however, the terms "Indian" and "American Indian" are used by the U.S. government as the standard decriptors. There is a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), for example, rather than a Bureau of Native American Affairs. Similarly, the Smithsonian's new National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, DC (2004), uses the older term, as does its quarterly full-color publication, American Indian.

American

The meaning of American has two common meanings: while it may refer to the Americas in general (meaning 1), it often refers specifically (therefore not exclusively) to the United States of America and its territories (meaning 2). Further,

A native of America; — originally applied to the aboriginal inhabitants, but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America, and especially to the citizens of the United States. [1913 Webster]

WordNet gives the primary meaning as the U.S., the secondary as the language, and the tertiary as the Americas.

Merriam-Webster gives (1) an American Indian of the Americas; (2) an inhabitant of the Americas, native or not; (3) a U.S. citizen; and (4) the language. The American Heritage Dictionary gives three meanings as Merriam-Webster, without "an American Indian".

Native

The word native has often been applied to ethnic groups to mean "a group who lived in some place before the arrival of other groups"; in this context, specifically, "before the arrival of the Europeans".

However, the proper meaning of "native" is "born in", and thus the term native American or native of the Americas could be equally applicable to anyone born in the Americas or in United States. The word probably acquired the other (ethno-historical) sense in the early years of European naval exploration and colonial expansion, when the "natives"—the people "born in" the foreign countries—were indeed non-Europeans.

Expressions such as native-born may be used to further qualify that the intended meaning is the common one (i.e., "born in or originating from a given place"), and not the formal, specific designation (i.e., "Native" in the sense of belonging to an identified indigenous group), if the context does not otherwise make this distinction clear.

Furthermore, in the United States the expression Native American has acquired a specific technical and legal meaning, which is discussed in a later section. In principle this narrower sense is indicated by capitalizing the word native. However, one must be aware that this typographical detail is easily lost on readers, and of course ineffective in speech.

The word native is also problematic because of its political implications, since "native" ethnic groups sometimes claim to have more rights—to natural resources, political offices, indemnities, cultural prestige, etc.—than the "non-native" groups who arrived later; the implication being that the "non-natives" are "aliens", "foreigners", "usurpers", etc.—even if their ancestors have lived in the place for many generations. "Many" is relative. Native Americans have lived and travelled their "usual and accustomed grounds" (a common treaty term) since the end of the last glacial period (c. 8,000 B.C.E.—10,000 years ago), along the northern tier of what is now the United States, definitively at least 4,000 years B.P. (before present) in what is now Seattle, for one example. Native Americans have lived elsewhere in the Americas far longer. When the people of the Norte Chico were building at least seven large-scale settlements on the Peruvian coast between 3200 and 2500 B.C.E., there was only one other urban complex on the planet: Sumer, in the Tigris-Euphrates valley.

Such claims (or the possibility thereof) may lead to rejection of the label by the "non-natives". These may argue, e.g., that the "natives" themselves were invaders to even earlier inhabitants; or that they are no longer residing on their "native" land; or that there is insufficient historical evidence of their native status; and so on. The issue boils down to the undecidable question of how long a group should reside in a place before it deserves the label "native". This reaction has actually occurred in the US, for example, against the term Native Americans.

Indigenous

Even though the term indigenous may sound similar to "Indian", the two are quite unrelated. The term comes from Latin indigena, "native", formed from indu "in" and gen- "beget".

Indigenous in the strict sense means typically found, living, or originating in a specific place. Thus, Italians are indigenous to Italy.

Aboriginal and Aborigine

The English adjective aboriginal and the noun aborigine come from a Latin phrase meaning "from the origin", which was first applied to native peoples of central Italy who were contemporaries of the ancient Romans.

According to this etymology, therefore, it could be used for ethnic groups who "were there since the beginning", i.e. the first to arrive in a region, or those who can be identified the earliest historical or archaeological records. Indeed, it has been occasionally used in this sense in English, at least 19th century, for indigenous populations all over the world, including the Americas.

Aboriginal may imply a more direct or ancient link to the past (especially one that predates recorded history) than indigenous, but there is considerable overlap in meaning between the two terms.

However, this general use has been largely preempted by narrower legal or common usage definitions that it has received in some countries. Throughout most of the English-speaking world, it is commonly understood to refer to the Indigenous Australians. It has also special legal status in Canada (see below).

Names for United States native peoples

In the United States, Native American and American Indian are commonly used to denote the indigenous peoples in the United States. Both terms are almost exclusively used to describe the natives of the continental United States, usually excluding the indigenous peoples of Hawaii and the Aleut, Inuit, and Yupik peoples of the far north.

The terms Alaska Natives is used for the indigenous peoples in Alaska (including the Inuit, Yupik, and Aleut), and Native Hawaiians is used for those of Hawaii.

Indian and American Indian

In North America the name Indian (and hence American Indian) came to be negatively loaded and considered an offensive ethnic slur by many Native Americans, if only because it is a name that was imposed on them by their historical oppressors. The Indian stereotype that prevailed in Western movies until the 1970s is thought to have contributed to this situation.

For that reason, non-Natives have generally avoided it since the 1980s. On the other hand, according to a recent survey, many Natives actually prefer Indian or American Indian to Native Americans, and use the three terms interchangeably.

The term American Indian is often shortened to Indian when the context allows, e.g. in the name of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Native American

The term Native American was introduced in the United States by anthropologists who hoped it would be more accurate than Indian and free from its negative stereotypes. It can be taken to mean the same as the older term, that is encompassing all Indian in the Americas but not Inuit or Native Hawaiians. Others restrict its usage to ethnic groups indigenous to pre-Columbian America who are presently living in the United States while some U.S. laws define it as including Indians, Eskimos (Inuits), Aleuts, Hawaiians and native Pacific Islanders (Native American Languages Act of 1990).

The phrase Native American, intended in this sense, is usually capitalized, in order to reduce confusion with the common sense of native ("someone who is born in a place").

The name has been contested by some non-Native US citizens, especially in the 1970s and 1980s; both for the perception that the name diminished their own status or rights, and also as part of the general backlash against "political correctness", for which the term was often cited as an example

The term is sometimes used to refer to all indigenous peoples of all of the Americas, including the US and Canada but sometimes not including Mexico or further south. However, people from those countries, especially from Canada, object to this usage as incorrect, or even somewhat "imperialistic".

WordNet dictionary defines Native American concisely as, "n: any member of the peoples living in North or South America before the Europeans arrived [syn: {Amerindian}]" The American Heritage Dictionary begins clearly enough as the WordNet definition, adding that scientists generally consider their ancestors as having entered the Americas from Asia across the Bering Strait during the last glacial period—and then continues with dense paragraphs of "usage note".

Merriam-Webster adds to the WordNet definition, using aboriginal peoples, that this is especially a Native American of North America and especially the U.S. (but therefore not exclusively), and urges compararison with American Indian.

Some American Indians in the U.S. have misgivings about the term Native American. For instance, Russell Means, a famous American Indian activist, opposes the term because he believes it was imposed by the government without the consent of American Indians. Furthermore, some American Indians question the term Native American because, they argue, it serves to ease the conscience of "white America" with regard to past injustices done to American Indians by effectively eliminating "Indians" from the present.

Another objection that has been raised to this term is that it seems to imply that the other indigenous peoples of (or in) the United States which are excluded from its scope, such as those of Hawaii and the Aleut, Inuit, and Yupik, are not "natives" to the Continent. In the same context, Inuit are not "Indian", nor are the mixed-race but legally aboriginal Métis people of Canada.

Finally, the previously mentioned Carlin essay characterizes the phrase as "an inventory term" applied by the Department of the Interior in the early 1970s.

Savage

The term Savage is universally considered derogatory and bigoted. While some racist groups find it acceptable in the U.S., most people have come to reject such archaic descriptions of human beings.

Alaska Native

In Alaska, the term Alaska Native predominates, because of its legal use in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) and because it includes the Aleut, Inuit and Yupik peoples, the three groups of native Alaskan peoples.

Eskimos was once used for those groups, but this term is in disfavor because it is perceived by many of them as derogatory. This is further complicated by the fact that the term Inuit is sometimes used to refer to any of the groups, leading non-Inuits (particularly amongst the Yupik peoples) to actually prefer Eskimo, comparatively speaking. Inuit are "a people inhabiting the Arctic (northern Canada or Greenland or Alaska or eastern Siberia); the Algonquians called them Eskimo ('eaters of raw flesh') but they call themselves the Inuit (`the people') [syn: {Esquimau}, {Eskimo}]"

Names for Canadian native peoples

In Canada, the term Aboriginal peoples in Canada is used for all indigenous peoples established in the country, including the Inuit and Inuvialuit, as well as the Métis. The usual U.S. usage is "Native American" or "Indian".

The term First Nations is used in a more restricted sense, for all the indigenous peoples in Canada except the Inuit, Inuvialuit, and Métis.

First Nations

In Canada, the term "First Nations" (most often used in the plural) has come into general use for the Indigenous peoples of North America located in what is now Canada, and their descendants, who are neither Inuit or Métis. The singular commonly used on culturally politicized reserves is the awkward "First Nations person" (when gender-specific, First Nations man or First Nations woman). A more recent trend is for members of various nations to refer to themselves by their tribal/national identity only, e.g. "I'm Haida", "we're Kwantlens", in recognition of the distinctiveness and diversity of First Nations ethnicities.

However, some tribal governments of Canada also use the term First Nations to refer to any indigenous, tribal or nomadic society. In this usage, the Roma, Sinti, Saami, Maori, Hmong, and the Australian Aborigines are also considered "First Nations".

Canadian Indians

The term Indians was once used to refer to the peoples now called First Nations, but it has fallen largely in disuse. However, it is still relevant in many legal and administrative contexts.

The Canadian Indian Act, which defines the rights of recognized First Nations, does refer to them as Indians. The federal government department in charge of First Nations affairs is the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs headed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. People officially recognized by the Indian Register under that act are commonly known as "Status Indians", although "Registered Indian" is the official term. Land set aside for the use of First Nations are known as Indian reserves.

The term Indian is also used in the official names of many First Nations governments.

Aboriginal Peoples in Canada

The term Aboriginal is defined in the Canadian Constitution to include "all Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples of Canada" (Constitution Act, 1982, Subsection 35(2). The term is understood to include also the Inuvialuit.

The term is also used in the U.S., though much less frequently. It is occasionally used in the UK The term Aborigines is not used in Canada to refer to indigenous American peoples.

The alternative term Indigenous Peoples (or Tribes, or Nations) has been used as equivalent to Aboriginal Peoples.

Native Canadians

"Native" or "Native Canadian" is an ambiguous term, but it is often used in conversation or informal writing. However, First Nations and Aboriginal Peoples seem to be more widely used.

Anishinaabe

The Algonquin term for "Original People", Anishinaabe or Anishinabe, is used as a cross tribal term in Algonquian majority areas such as "Anishnabe Health" and "Anishnabe Education and Training Circle".

Canadian French nomenclature

In Canadian French, the terms are première(s) nation(s) for "First Nations" and autochtone instead of "Aboriginal" (used both as a noun and adjective).

The term indien or indienne is used in the legislation, although the preferred term is now amérindien. The term indigène is not used as it is seen as having negative connotations because of its similarity to the French equivalent of "indigent", i.e. "lazy". The old French term sauvage (meaning "wild") is no longer used either, as it is considered racist.

Chinook Jargon nomenclature

The Chinook Jargon, the old trade language of the Pacific Northwest, uses siwash—an adaptation of the French sauvage—to mean Indian/Native American/First Nation, either as adjective or noun. While normally meaning a male native, it is used in certain combinations, e.g. siwash cosho, meaning a seal, but literally "Indian pig" or "Indian pork".

Like sauvage, siwash has come to have negative connotations in many native communities, while it remains in common parlance in others. When used by non-natives it is considered entirely derogatory except in placenames and certain other usages. In the creolized form of Chinook Jargon spoken at the Grand Ronde Agency in Oregon, a distinction is made between siwash and sawash. The accent in the latter is on the second syllable, resembling the French original, and is used in Grand Ronde Jargon with the benign meaning of "anything native/Indian", while siwash is considered defamatory.

The Chinook Jargon term for a native woman is klootchman, an originally Nootkan word which became commonplace in regional English to mean a native woman, or (as in the Jargon), all women and also anything female. Hyas klootchman tyee, "queen", klootchman cosho, "sow"; klootchman tenas or tenas klootchman, girl or little girl. Generally when used by itself in regional English klootchman means a native woman only, and did not acquire a derisive context as has siwash or squaw. The short form klootch, encountered only in English-Chinook hybrid phrasings, is often derisive, however, especially with modifiers (e.g. "blue-eyed klootch"). .

Names for native peoples in North America

North American Native

There is no accepted special name for all indigenous peoples in North America as a whole, although Native American is used. The term North American Indian is often used for a member of the more restricted group comprising the First Nations in Canada together with the Native Americans in the US. This term is usually understood to exclude the Alaskan Natives and the Inuit and Métis of Canada, and the indigenous peoples of Mexico.

Names for native peoples in Latin America

Indigenous Peoples and Indians

In Latin America, the preferred expression is Indigenous Peoples (pueblos indígenas in Spanish, povos indígenas in Portuguese). However, Indians (indios, índios) is often used too, even by indigenous peoples themselves.

In Mexico, Brazil, and several other countries, these names are normally applied only to the ethnic groups that have maintained their identity and, to a some extent, their original way of life. In those countries there is also a large segment of the population with mixed native and European ancestry, who are largely integrated in mainstream society, and no longer identify themselves with their ancestral native groups. These people were originally called mestizos in Mexico, caboclos in Brazil; however, those terms have largely fallen in disuse as they that segment has came to predominate among the population.

Aborigenes

The Spanish aborigen, cognate of English Aborigene, is also used in Spanish America, particularly in Chile and Argentina. The corresponding Portuguese term, aborígenas, is almost never used in Brazil.

Pre-Columbian and Pre-Cabraline Peoples

The term "Pre-Columbian Peoples" (Sp. pueblos precolombinos, Pt. povos pré-colombianhos) is used to refer to the ethnic groups that existed before the arrival of the Europeans, but not for their modern descendants. The term, of course, refers to Columbus, who landed in Hispaniola in 1492.

In Brazil, Pre-Columbian is often replaced by "Pre-Cabraline" (Pt. pré-cabralinhos), after Cabral who landed in Brazil in 1500.

Names for natives of both Americas

For the natives of the Americas as a whole, the phrase indigenous peoples of the Americas can be considered self-defined by the accepted meanings of "indigenous peoples" and "Americas", and seems to be the current preferred term in some anthropological and linguistic circles.

Still, its precise meaning can be disputed. For example, it is debatable whether it includes the indigenous people of Hawaii and other US territories outside the Americas. While those peoples have no known historical, cultural, or genetic connection with the indigenous peoples of the Americas, from a political and legal viewpoint they should arguably be considered "indigenous peoples" of their respective countries.

Other names that have been used or proposed for the indigenous peoples of both continents include:

Indian

As discussed above (# Indian and American Indian), this term has much precedence in the United States, but is considered offensive by some.

American Indian

Given the ambiguity of Indian, it was often necessary to use American Indian in order to distinguish those peoples from the natives of the East Indies. However, as noted above, American itself is ambiguous.

Red Indian

In Britain and some other English-speaking countries outside the Americas, the term Red Indian is still used to differentiate the American natives from the "East Indians". However, in North America the term is now considered an offensive racial slur, and is rarely if ever used.

Amerindian

In the French-speaking world, the term Amérindien was coined for the same purpose. The term was imported into English as Amerindian, sometimes abbreviated Amerind. This term gained some popularity among linguists, anthropologists, and other social scientists. The term is officially used by The World Almanac.

However, in scientific circles the term Amerind is often restricted to a subset of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, mostly from South and Central America, Mexico and the Southern United States. The peoples in this group share many genetic and cultural features that set them apart from the Na-Dene peoples, which comprise the majority of the U.S. and southern Canada indigenous peoples, and from the Eskimo peoples in Alaska and the Canadian Artic (Inuit, Yupik, and Aleut). Many anthropologists believe that these Amerind peoples are the descendants of the first immigrant wave from Siberia (15,000–10,000 years ago).

Native American or American Native

At face value, Native American and American Native could be taken to mean indigenous peoples of the Americas. This meaning is used in this article; however, some restrict its meaning to refer specifically for peoples in the United States, as discussed above, (# Meanings of basic terms). This term is also regarded as offensive by some, as discussed above, (# Indian and American Indian).

Bibliography

• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2000. ISBN 0395825172 (hardcover), ISBN 0618082301hardcover with CD ROM). {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  Fourth Edition
• Brunner, Borgna (2006 (c)). ""American Indian versus Native American: A once-heated issue has sorted itself out"". Retrieved not recorded. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help)
  Includes sources (including quotes Russel Means at "I am an American Indian, Not a Native American!" and Christina Berry at "What's in a Name? Indians and Political Correctness", also referenced on this page).
• Carlin, George (1997). Brain droppings. New York: Hyperion. ISBN 0786863137. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Dailey, Tom (2006-06-14). ""Duwamish-Seattle"". "Coast Salish Villages of Puget Sound". Retrieved 2006-04-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); External link in |work= (help)
  Page links to Village Descriptions Duwamish-Seattle section [1].
  Dailey referenced "Puget Sound Geography" by T. T. Waterman. Washington DC: National Anthropological Archives, mss. [n.d.] [ref. 2];
  Duwamish et al vs. United States of America, F-275. Washington DC: US Court of Claims, 1927. [ref. 5];
  "Indian Lake Washington" by David Buerge in the Seattle Weekly, 1-7 August 1984 [ref. 8];
  "Seattle Before Seattle" by David Buerge in the Seattle Weekly, 17-23 December 1980. [ref. 9];
  The Puyallup-Nisqually by Marian W. Smith. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940. [ref. 10].
  Recommended start is "Coast Salish Villages of Puget Sound" [2].
• d'Errico, Peter (2005-12-20). "An interview with Charles C. Mann". Indian Country Today. Retrieved 2006-08-06. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  Part 1 and Part 2 of 2
• d'Errico, Peter, Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts (2005-07-11). ""Native American Indian Studies - A Note on Names"". University of Massachusetts. Retrieved 2006-08-06. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  Provides references.
• Dyck, Michael (ed.) (16 June 2002). "GCIDE_XML", the GNU version of The Collaborative International Dictionary of English, presented in the Extensible Markup Language. Based on GCIDE version 0.46 (15 April 2002). Retrieved 21 April 2006.
• George; staff report, Straight Dope Science Advisory Board (2001-10-25). ""Does 'Indian' derive from Columbus's description of Native Americans as una gente in Dios?"". Chicago Reader, Inc. Retrieved 2006-04-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Mann, Charles C. (2005). 1491 : new revelations of the Americas before Columbus. New York: Knopf. ISBN 140004006X (alk. paper). {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Means, Russell (1996 (c), last update 2000-12-16). ""I am an American Indian, Not a Native American!"". Jim Hickinbotham (Rabid Wolf, Choctaw). Retrieved not recorded. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
• The Merriam-Webster dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. 2004. ISBN 087779930X, ISBN 0877799318 (pbk.). {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Miller, George A. (August 2003). WordNet (r) 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Retrieved 21 April 2006.
  Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and database and its documentation for any purpose and without fee or royalty is hereby granted, provided that you agree to comply with the following copyright notice and statements, including the disclaimer, and that the same appear on ALL copies of the software, database and documentation, including modifications that you make for internal use or for distribution.
  WordNet 2.0 Copyright 2003 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
  THIS SOFTWARE AND DATABASE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND PRINCETON UNIVERSITY MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, BUT NOT LIMITATION, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT THE USE OF THE LICENSED SOFTWARE, DATABASE OR DOCUMENTATION WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS. ["License" at "Obtaining WordNet 2.0" of "About WordNet"]. Retrieved 21 April 2006.
• Talbert, Paul (2006-05-01). ""SkEba'kst: The Lake People and Seward Park"". The History of Seward Park. SewardPark.org. Retrieved 2006-06-06. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help)

Further reading

• "American Indians - Native Americans: A Note on Terminology", Peter d'Errico (22 August 2002), NativeWeb.org.
  Condensed version of d'Errico (2005)
• "Native American Indian Studies - A Note on Names", Peter d'Errico (11 July 2005), Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts. References provided.
• "What's in a Name? Indians and Political Correctness", Christina Berry (12 July 2006), All Things Cherokee.

[The above are also listed bibliographic references.]

• Hickinbotham, Jim (2000-12-16 updated). ""A Testimony to the Survival of Original Peoples [...]"". Retrieved 2006-08-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help)
  "Trails" section heading is a table of contents to people and sources related to the naming controversy. (Not neutral point of view, but provides good leads.)