I was involved in a discussion with a friend which eventually turned upon a point of 'labels' or labelling. (Akin to my 'Gandhi' discussion in this forum, but not exactly so.)
In order to investigate this phenomenon, I wondered if the gathered ayleurs here (and members of this forum who sternly repudiate the notion that they could ever willingly be ayleurs) might answer a coupe of questions for me.
What I'm looking for is:
1. your reaction; and
2. your response
to a word that I give you.
To explain, if, for instance, the word I gave you was nigger, your reaction might be: "Yuk. Don't ever use that word." Your response might be: Well, I suppose technically it could be taken to mean an African-American, but it has such derogatory connotations that it is only ever acceptable in use when used by an African-American as part of African-American patois (as in hip-hop music and so on).
If the word I gave you was minute your reaction might be: "a moent, a short length of time". Your response might be: "Ah yes, it also means something really tiny. In any case, why is shanks linking this to a completely different thread?"
So there you go. I hope I've explained myself well enough. Begging your indulgence on this one, here's the word:
Indian
Thanks
the sunshine warrior
Both my reaction and my response have been:
Which kind of Indian are you talking about?
Ciao
Emanuela
My reaction: ambiguous-- how is this word being used? Is there really such a thing as an Indian? (Well, there are millions of citizens of the country India–I suppose I would call them Indian!)
My response: Well it could refer to an American Indian--or could be someone from the Indian sub-continent-- and even then its not a good word--I am not a European American-- i am Irish American--
Indian is too vague-- are they Pakistani? or Bengali? Hindu? Muslim? from Bangladeshi? (And while Pakistani's and Bangladeshi's might not consider themselves to be INDIAN– they are from the indian subcontinent– Like "american" which tend to refer to citizens of the US– but technically speaking– American can be anyone from the americas– both north and south!)
or are they North American Indian?-- Shoshone? Mohawk? what nation?
or South American-- i recognize name of some to some American groups-- but I can't name any....
Indian is such a vague a word–it's hard to react to it.
Hi shanks,
Very sorry, but your distinction between "reaction" and "response" provoked a reaction in my mind, a bit like: what the heck is he up to? And the attendant response (in your sense "filtered through reason") would be: Yours is a leading question, leading to a feeling of manipulation. I mainly post this because yesterday I met an old retired colleague of mine, of Indian (i.e. India) origin.
Indian
reaction: which one? or is the ambiguity the point?
response: used to describe large, noncohesive groups of people - persons whose ancestors come from the Indian subcontinent, and persons whose ancestors come from the Americas (well, sort of. MY ancestors come from North America, including the ones whose ancestors came from Germany, Ireland, France, Scotland ... shoot, if you go back far enough, we're all African.) None of the ancestors regarded themselves as part of a homogeneous group, but the term is convenient except for the unfortunate duplication due to Columbus being hopelessly lost. I wish there were different terms for the two groups, but the PC Native American is cumbersome. I don't know if there is a similar phrase used in India.
"Indian"
Immediate reaction = (Red) Indian. Few Americans have had any contact with them except in books and movies. When we were kids, we may have played "Cowboys and Indians". The Indians always lost. We may have seen them at fairs and carnivals all dressed up in fake un-authentc costumes, but never had a chance to talk to them. A few of us may remember uncomfortably how they were systematically driven onto reservations, and even moved off them onto less desirable reservations when oil was discovered on the first reservation.
Reaction: Person from Indian subcontinent
Response: Hmm, I realise the mental image my mind conjures, unbidden, is probably specifically a Hindu man (so betraying my cultural sterotype-programming of being both racist and sexist - ah, bloody language!)
My reaction was the same as Bill's: Native American. Interestingly, those who are from Australasia fasten on the meaning of someone from the Indian subcontinent. Which just proves that your reactions are determined by your surroundings and experience, which we already knew. What's more to the point is what emotional reaction comes with it. In my case, "indian" i.e., native american, is something tinged with mystery, something somewhat exotic, since I have never personally known an American Indian and know nothing about them but what I have read in books, most of which make the Indians somewhat romantic figures. This in spite of the fact that I do know Indians (in the other sense) personally, and have no particular emotive reaction to that sense of the word. Indian indians are not exotic to me because I know some and they are real people to me like any others.
Sweet shanks, because it was you doing the asking, my reaction was: a person or thing from India. My response was American Indians, and this probably would be my normal reaction, since the vast majority of the context in which I see this word relates to them.
Darling Bill, may I take gentle issue with something you said? (Red) Indian. Few Americans have had any contact with them Weren't they Americans (geography-wise) before you and I were?
1. Increasingly my reaction to the word "Indian" is one of mild shock and discomfort, like my reaction to your first example word.
2. I would never describe Native Americans as "Indians", as the word is increasingly considered politically incorrect. Considering how "geographically incorrect" it is makes it even more unacceptable to me and many other Americans. I believe several newspapers' sports sections have decided to stop refering to the baseball team from Cleveland (the Indians) and the football team from Washington DC (the Redskins) by their insensitive nicknames. For those who find the term "Native Americans" too cumbersome, a easy alternative is to use the name of the specific nation ("tribe") you are discussing instead of generalizing.
Only secondarily do I think of "someone (or thing) from India". Perhaps if people stop using the word to refer to Native Americans, it will also clear up the confusion currently inherent in the term. I have ofen heard this exchange:
"I was talking to an Indian friend --"
"American Indian or India Indian?"
"Oh, India Indian. Anyway, I was talking to a friend from India, and ..."
Just my humble opinion, but that's what you were looking for, wasn't it?
Flatlander
"Mother Teresa lived in Asia?" asked the incredulous voice on the other
end of the telephone line. "I thought she lived in India."http://sree.net/stories/newswatch.html
Indian
Reaction: One from the subcontinent
Response: Wondering if I still have family living there. Having a friend here who is of Native American descent, it would no longer even occur to me that the word Indian would be used to describe Native Americans. That, and the fact that my entire life has been spent around people who were either Indian, Anglo-Indian, or Indiaphiles.
Interesting that every single response so far has both assumed that the word was used as a noun, and a noun describing a person at that.
Indian to me has connotations with the Indian sub-continent or something that originated there. Nothing to do with Native Americans at all. That's the easy bit.
After that, I find myself sympathising with whoever it was who says the way the question was posed is manipulative - sorry Shanks, I don't mean this as a negative, but how often do you get asked what a word means to you, then have the word presented in isolation? When this happens to me I feel as if someone is going to try and trip me up, and I'm prety sure my reactions/responses are no longer 'pure instinct', which I think is what you are trying to explore.
A strong connotation for me is 'let's go for an Indian' - meaning Indian food. Well, my earliest memories are of Bangladesh, where we lived for a year, and I also spent three and a half years in Hounslow, London, for over a year of which time I had a regular date every Wednesday night at our favourite local Indian restaurant. Now sadly closed down and much missed. (Without trying to trivialise, if any of the Sydneysiders know a really good Indian restaurant here, please advise... Or Max, Shanks, others, do you know and have a recipe for Begum Bihar?)
The other point for me about this word is hinted at in my comment about living in Bangladesh. When applied to people, I've heard it used so often to mean someone from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, or someone who looks like that's where they came from, rather than specifically about people from India. (I see MAx said that too.) In that context, I have never thought of it as particularly derogatory - uninformed, perhaps, but if you want to be derogatory, try 'Paki'.
..I also thought fleetingly (wistfully - daylight saving has just ended down under and 'winter' is on the way) about Indian summers. Which to me is nothing but positive.
Syncronistically speaking... I am wearing an Oxford shirt with the word "Indian" scripted on the pocket.
That would be the Indian Motorcycle Company.
My reaction and response - in one.
Interesting that every single response so far has both assumed that the word was used as a noun, and a noun describing a person at that.
Indian to me has connotations with the Indian sub-continent or something that originated there.
Touché! I guess my perceptions had been "manipulated" by the link with a thread discussing an Indian person, and went from there. As to "Indian" meaning "subcontinental" rather than "from the Republic of India", my answer was shaped by at least two factors. Most signifcantly, my own family history. My father, all his siblings, and their parents were all born in the India that was "the jewel in the Crown", when there was no Pakistan or Bangladesh, and so my father was born in what is now India but grew up in what is now Pakistan. The other factor that influenced my use of the term is that I lack the skill to distinguish Aryan from Dravidian, unless I saw them together, and even then I would hesitate. If I met someone from the subcontinent, I would never ask, "are you Indian?", but would ask "where are you from?", as the majority of ethnic Indians here are from Fiji, many never having been to India. Shanks' use of Europe as somewhat analogous to India was particularly helpful to me, in reinforcing the fact that "Indian" is one of those fragile categories he talked about elsewhere.
Bridget, Bridget, Bridget--WELCOME BACK !!!!!
Oh, MERCY I've missed you! And I don't give a hoot if this a "gratuitous post"!
Indian - someone of Aryan or Dravidian origins. Although personally, I have no problem with the idea of native Americans also being called "Indians" from the point of view of clarity.
Feelings - none, really, associated with the word itself. The fact that two of our closest friends are Sri Lankan and Fijian Indian means, I guess, that there is some warmth there, but then I only think of their origins when something (like Shanks' question) brings it to mind. Friendship has nothing to do with race or colour, per se. If I think about the country itself, I have three very clear memory-pictures which sum up the amazing contrast that one encounters on the sub-continent.
I guess the noun/adjective point brought up above has little meaning for me in practical terms. Most country names can either be noun or adjective, as in "He comes from New Zealand" and "He bought New Zealand butter".
FWIW
The word Indian brings to mind my friends Lalitha, Sridhar, Vishva, Umakant, Sundar, Shankar and Praveen. The delicious tea they make for me and how I feel that they love me and how I feel so at home with them. They are kindred spirits.
My response
If you had asked me this question in 1969 when I deplaned at Logan International Airport, and for the very first time, all 87 pounds of me, touched foot on what is to become my second country, my one and only thought then would be the "Indians" of the American movies that we watched a lot of in our native country.
Now that I am older and wiser (debatable) the Indians of my youth are now Native Americans, and I do not associate the word Indian to them any longer. It seems so archaic now.
chronist
Thanks for all the replies so far.
For those who think the question was manipulative, I offer no apologies. This was not meant to be quantitatively sound research and analysis, but a thumbnail sketch of reactions. In all such issues, particularly with words possessing strong and varied connotations, the connotations themselves can often provide the 'manipulation'. If, instead of 'Indian', the word I chose had been 'and' or 'the', would you have felt as manipulated? If not, then my question was valid, simply because I am/was trying to explore the range of connotations that the word has - and using as my base the amazingly varied membership of AWADtalk.
One point I didn't anticipate, which Jackie noted, was the fact that, since the post was by me, there would be certain connotations, or associations, pre-attached, as it were, to the word. For my inability to correct for that, I apologise.
My hypothesis, if there was one, was that in the US, the word 'Indian' is primarily associated with Native Americans (or Amerinds, or Aboriginal Americans, or Native Persons, or whatever is the current politically correct label for that group of people), whereas for anglophones outside the US, the word seems to be associated primarily with people/objects from either the Republic of India, or the South Asian sub-continent. This seems, so far, ot have been borne out by the replies.
Your indulgence in this matter has been greatly appreciated. Namaste
the sunshine ("wandering between two worlds/one dead, the other powerless to be born") warrior
Indian
My reaction: I was immediately split in twain.
My response: I felt equally drawn by the denotation of those to whom we refer in a PC manner as Native Americans and those of the Asian sub-continent. This mental rending seems to have masked any other reactions I may have had to the word and I am usually fairly good at noticing these things if I am prepared to do so. I know some people who are at least partly Native American and they seem to be anything but unanimous about the use of the word Indian to refer to them. US'ns normally do go through some verbal gyrations when using the term in a way that we feel may be ambiguous.
Considerable discussion occurred in Editorial meetings in the 1970s about how to distinguish, in writing, whether a person was a native of India or an American Indian.
The words Amerindian and Asiaindian were bandied about but time and history made the decision for us.
The American Indians I have been in contact with feel that Native American is generally acceptable as meaning the many Nations and tribes which make up the Native American population of the United States.
In Hawaii there was an upsurge in the pride among the indigenous peoples of those islands in the early 1980s and Native Hawaiian, meaning a person carrying the blood of indigenous ancestors, became the acceptable phrasing.
The more you use Native American and Native Hawaiian the more trippingly it rolls off the tongue.
Odd, if I am away from the USA and people ask where I'm from I say : "Im an American, from New England," but if I am in the US I tend to say "I'm Irish American."
As an aside there's the famous (at the time) story: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when addressing the Daughters of the American Revolution (?) began his remarks by addressing the assemblage : Fellow immigrants ..."
Which we are, aren't we?
Unless we are Native Americans?
wow
As an aside there's the famous (at the time) story: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when addressing the Daughters of the American Revolution (?) began his remarks by addressing the assemblage : Fellow immigrants ..."
Which we are, aren't we?
Unless we are Native Americans?
wowDefinition of immigrant important here, wow. At the risk of alienating some, may I say that it seems quite certain certain (archaeological and genetic evidence combine here) that Native Americans are also immigrants - but of apporximately 13,000 years ago, from over the Bering land bridge that existed at the time.
cheer
the sunshine warrior
here's a reaction/response you probably haven't had.
my initial reaction is calm and reasoned and goes like this: since the word has ambiguous connotations, it depends totally on the context; i.e., where am I and who am I speaking with.
since I live in the U.S., this usually means that I end up in the American Indian context and have to deal with the whole p.c. thing [exasperated frown] once again. I rail at using the Native American appellation -- am I not a 'native american'? are my US-born ancestors not just as dead as theirs? [gratuitous aside: I doubt that aborigine (or autochthon) will catch on here anytime soon.] so I end up [response] being steamed at having to deal with yet another of these frustrating language issues that are really just a waste of time and energy and contribute *nothing* to useful dialog(ue).
Native Americans are also immigrants - but of approximately 13,000 years ago
Oh, Pooh! I knew that, Sweet Shanks!
FDR was jabbing at a group who considered themselves "THE" Americans ... and he used his opening to bring home the point that there are many "Americans."
Remember, sweetheart, those were the days when the Metropolitan Opera diva, contralto Marian Anderson, was denied the use of the DAR Hall for a concert. The DAR said the reason was not because Miss Anderson was a Negro (the term of the time) but because the Hall was too small to accommodate the expected audience.
Anyway, through the intercession of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, the concert was held at the Lincoln Memorial with Miss Anderson on the steps just below the statue of The Great Emancipator, and many many thousands of people of all colors filling the mall below.
There are films of the event extant.
wow
One of my experiences, Shanks, makes me wonder what Indians think about "Indian", or, for that matter, what members of any human grouping think about their own group.
My wife became friends, through her work, with an Indian physician. Her husband is an engineer and they have two young sons, who attended a very exclusive private school here (they are very well off). Her mother lives with them and does all the housekeeping and cooking (she's a wonderful cook) and takes charge of the boys; she watches them like a hawk while they do their homework and, although she understands none of it, not being an educated woman and not speaking English very well, and they being quite advanced in their studies, if she thinks they are slacking or fooling around, she lets them have it with a stick.
The wife and her mother are from northern India and speak Hindi; her husband is from southern India and speaks one of the southern languages. (Their marriage was arranged by their parents.) He gets along OK in Hindi, but she and her mother do not know his language very well. They speak mostly English with the boys and some Hindi, but I'm not sure if the boys know any of their father's language.
Thanks to the grandmother, at home they eat Indian food only; the boys eat American food at school and outside the home, but the parents ordinarily do not. We spent a weekend with them at their new home in Connecticut, where they moved after her contract in Baltimore lapsed, and ate nothing but Indian food, cooked by the grandmother, and had a wonderful time. We noticed, however, that the boys, although very respectful and deferential to their elders, seemed to be somewhat dissatisfied with the fact that they live in a sort of artificial Indian island in the midst of Connecticut. We also learned that on the 2 or 3 occasions when they took the boys to India to visit family, the boys' reactions were very negative -- they absolutely hated Bombay (where they stayed with her brother and his family, crowded into a too-small apartment) and they didn't like their paternal grandparents' home in the country (from pictures it looks like a substantial estate) in south India. They hated the heat, the flies, the smells, the fact they couldn't understand anyone -- in short, it appears they are too Americanized, at least at the age they were then (12 and 9).
My wife and I have often remarked that it's a shame that their privileged upper-income life in America seems to have spoiled them for appreciating their ancestral land. They seem somehow to be more Indian here than there, and maybe don't care to be Indian.
Comments?
"apporximately 13,000 years ago, from over the Bering land bridge that existed at the time. "
I have read that the natives of Alaska are amused by the anthropologists' fixation on a land bridge, saying that a crossing on the ice would have been easy. And in addition, the people in Siberia may well have had the equivalents of kayaks prior to that time.
Bob
Thanks for that. The reaction of the boys seems about typical. In Bombay, when we were young and politically incorrect, and probably in other places too, Indians used to call people of this ilk ABCDs - American Born Confused Desis (the last word being Hindi for '[fellow] countrymen').
Another very common situation is one in which the emigrants adhere more closely to the 'traditions' of the homeland than the people in the homeland do.
You say:
it's a shame that their privileged upper-income life in America seems to have spoiled them for appreciating their ancestral land
Here, I feel, context is everything. I do not see why anybody, no matter what her/his ancestry, should appreciate overcrowding, intense heat, poverty and extremely dangerous water. While many in India have to live in these conditions, they are not things to be celebrated. As Shaw pointed out in Major Barbara, you may feel pity for the poor, but be pretty certain not to romanticise poverty.
The fact of the matter is that (as any UN, UNESCO, UNICEF study will point out) the median standard of living in India today is atrocious. It would be unfair to ask these children to somehow appreciate it. On the other hand, if their family is helping them to appreciate some of the highlights of Indian culture and history - whether it is the range and depth of its architecture, literature, music, performing arts, graphic arts and so on, or the fact that it is the seat of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, and is the most populous democracy in the world - then I am sure this is a good thing. It doesn't sound to me as if the children will miss out on these things to be celebrated about India. And I promise you that you do not have to enjoy visiting Bombay, or anywhere else in the country today, in order to do so.
Yes, it would be nice if they could enjoy visiting India - but then, I'm sure it would be nice if many more people enjoyed doing that - the Indian Tourism Development Board would have multiple little deaths of delight at the thought - but the fact is that the Indian experience, for anyone accustomed to living in a developed Westernised society, is 'intense' to say the least, and even traumatic for many. I do not think these children are necessarily born with any special 'coping with India' genes, and one can hardly blame them for knowing exactly where in the world they feel more comfortable, safe, relaxed and healthy.
cheer
the sunshine warrior
Although I was born in the USA, and live in the USA, I feel uncomfortable thinking of aboriginal people on this continent as Indians. It is simply illogical, founded on a gross error in navigation by that Italian sailor in the employ of the Spanish.
The picture gets cloudier, however, when one realises that those whom we consider aboriginal, or native Americans may NOT be aboriginal! The recent discovery of Kennowick Man casts doubt that those claiming to be here first really were.
As for your "trigger" word, "nigger," just remove one "g" and you've got the Latin word for black, and an African country as well. Spelling and context make such a difference!
Someone in my Eglish class, looking at a globe, made the mistake of thinking that the trigger word had only one g.
On another subject, I noticed that someone said that the Indians lost when kids played Cowboys and Indians, the Indians lost. Well, when I played, the Indians usually took over the world after killing the Cowboys.
jimthedog
My reaction is that it's an adjective -- Indian what?
My response is that it's a short way to refer to Native Americans, acceptable in speech, and only in writing if the you use "Native American" in the first instance. It also means residents of India. (Even though there are probably more natives of India, maybe because my roommate is a Native American, I think of that first.) It also refers to a vast cultural lode of the work of Native Americans and (east) Indians.
So that my answer would be fresh, I wrote the above post without reading other's responses. Now that I have, a couple of more thoughts --
I was more more careful about using "Native American" in all instances until I began sharing my loft with Ken, who is purely Native American. We frequently discuss cultural, political, and social matters, and in my use of the terms in question, I followed his lead. He often uses "Indian," when he's not referring to members of specific tribes. This is not to say that all NAs agree with this....
BTW, I wonder how come Native American names are usually either common American names, or NA names rendered into English; i.e. Running Bear. Are there instances of NA names in the tribal language? Not that I've noticed....
My reaction is that it's an adjective -- Indian what?I should think you'd have answered, "Indian corn!"
BTW, I wonder how come Native American names are usually either common American names, or NA names rendered into English; i.e. Running Bear. Are there instances of NA names in the tribal language?
Assimilation of native peoples was both a popular movement and governmental policy for many years in first half of the 20th Century.
It is my understanding that officials would not accept tribal or native names and insisted "American" names be used for school, jobs, etc.
That is one reason most older Native Hawaiians have "American" first names and Hawaiian middle names. Further I've been told Native Americans had an "American" name (Joe, Jane, Bob, Betsy etc.) and a Tribal Name used among their own people.
Times have changed, thank heavens.
If I have been misinformed I await correction in the expectation others will leap into the breach.
wow
Even though there are probably more natives of India, Nice understatement, Blanche, unless there are a billion Native Americans!
In reply to:
Even though there are probably more natives of India,
Nice understatement, Blanche, unless there are a billion Native Americans!
Now that the casinos on the reservations are raking in the dough, there are about a billion people claiming to be tribal members. And those people are - what? - pseudo-pseudo-Indians?
[suddenly-realizing-what-the-Phil-Collins-song-was-about emoticon]
I'm answering this before reading any other responses, so that it is my own, uncoloured by any other.
My reaction to "Indian" is very mixed, because it has meant so many different things over the years.
When I was a child, the word was inextricably linked to "Cowboy", and that is still the first image that comes to mind - however, as I lived near to Southall until I was a young adult, the word also brings at almost the same time, the image of men wearing turbans (Sikh and you shall find, as they say!)
Most of the Indians that I have known as friends or colleagues have been either professional men or business acquaintances, so have been educated and cultured.
(BTW, some of them have been from Pakistan, rather than India, but my early conditioning has caused me to lump them all together. Partly, I suppose, because the word "Pakistani" - or Paki - has such adverse connotations in most peoples minds)
Hope this is of use to you!
I would be inclined to agree with someone further up the list who said "Indian what?" I think it's an adjective in my mind. I've somehow dissassociated the word from a mental image of a "typical" North American Indian. In Manitoba, something like 4% of the population is Native so they're not some sort of mythical cultural group. They are a bit more mythical in Newfoundland because the Natives here, the Beothuks, were pretty much killed off by the usual colonization factors; disease, encroachment of their lands, alcohol, and so on.
The weirdest thing about reading the responses was this US usage of "Native Americans". In Canada we use Aboriginal or First Nations or Native. (I think we don't like the term Native Americans because they're Native Canadians!) I didn't know these words were not used south of the border until I read all the preceding messages. However, the government department which deals with their concerns, administers terms of treaties, etc., is still called The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. They haven't PCed their name yet.
My response in conversation would be "Indian? [blank look] Native or India-Indian?" (Still not terribly clear but anyone I would talk to would understand what I was asking.)
My reaction to the word Indian would be pretty similar to the other North Americans who responded, in particular Bean. I was surprised to note that someone mentioned the word autochtone as a description of indiginous persons; I am familiar with that being used in French but never in English.
I will admit to some difficulty with the term native, as I am a native Canadian albeit a caucasian one. I was born here in this country, therefore I am a native of Canada. How many generations back must your family trace its roots before its progeny can be called native? Are the descendants of William the Conquerer living in England today to be considered immigrants? Not an easy question, but one that bears some thought.
Finally, an example of how our sensibilities have changed can be seen in the changing titles of Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None." It started out as "Ten Little N*****s" and then became "Ten Little Indians" before changing to its current form.
I will admit to some difficulty with the term native, as I am a native Canadian albeit a caucasian one. I was born here in this country, therefore I am a native of Canada. How many generations back must your family trace its roots before its progeny can be called native? Are the descendants of William the Conquerer living in England today to be considered immigrants? Not an easy question, but one that bears some thought.
I admit I find that one confusing too. It's used so often to mean "Indigenous person" that when someone refers to someone else as a native of somewhere, I find myself assuming they are "Native" (or First Nations or whatever), and I am then confused when it turns out they mean a white person who is "from" somewhere.