If the name America is European, what does American Indian really mean? or Native American?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Ves...





I respect American Indians, Native Americans.





I just don't understand why they would want to distinguish themselves from the Europeans who came here centuries ago, then essentially use a European name.





I'm just saying, they must have had some name(s) for the country that aren't european in origin. They had to call it something.

If the name America is European, what does American Indian really mean? or Native American?
I'll answer your question with a quote from an Indian.





As an Indian - a direct descendant of the Comanche warrior Bad Eagle, 1839-1906 - I’ve always been fascinated with foreigners. I’ve admired their great courage and determination. They made a perilous journey from their homeland. They learned a new language, and new ways, all in a new land.





(“Indian”? Naturally, most tribes prefer their own name. But that’s in their own language, and no one but themselves would know of whom they speak. There is no collective name for “Indians” in any tribal language. The modern term "Native American," created in the 1970s by leftists, is ambiguous. Most Indian people don't use it - only what I call the "university tribe," college-educated Indians led by white radical professors; and the would-be politically correct media. The name we first held, in the white man's eyes, was "Indian." That's what we have been since Columbus. That's what our most famous warriors were called. Believe me, Indians prefer the name “Indian.” It is historically specific, whatever its origin. The name holds the emotional, psychological associations of the warrior. The Left, of course, wants to remove that. Hey, call me savage!)
Reply:America was named after Amerigo Vespucci, The Spanish called the inhabitants " Indians" ,As they thought they were in the East Indies,


Native Americans was a politically correct name for the People that were here when the Europeans came, I don't think many were asked any questions before being shot.





Edit,


Dr . David A Yeagley, is an enrolled member of the Comanche Tribe, because his Adoptive mother is Comanche, And he enrolled because she was named as his Mother.





Yeagley The Indian Apple!


http://www.bluecorncomics.com/yeagley.ht...





What real Comanches think about him.
Reply:that early sailors had sucky compuses
Reply:The Lakota people I know would rather be called Lakota, or by the specific tribe. Just a guess, but probably similar for others as well.
Reply:swd
Reply:They don't call themselves that. We call them that. They call themselves by their nation or, for lack of a better word, tribe.. such as Sioux, Cherokee, Algonquin, Shawnee, Cree....





The indigineous people to this land weren't united in one huge confederacy. There separate nations and tribes spread all over the place. Current borders meant nothign then, they did not exist.
Reply:A nation and a tribe are different. Each nation had a name for there territory. There wasn't a name for the whole United States.
Reply:The answer may be that the settlers have succeeded in subjugating them. But the settlers qualify themselves as well.





It means that there are two types of "American", that is - qualified Americans and Americans.





The qualified Americans include:





Native Americans; African Americans; Irish Americans; English Americans; Muslim Americans; Scottish Americans; Asian Americans; Anglo Americans ["Americans" plus English people, but not Welsh, Scottish nor Irish people?]; Italian Americans; Chinese Americans; Greek Americans and so on...





The Americans, of course always include the "real Americans" who qualify the other type. Some of them contribute to Yahoo! Answers in a stereotyped style which seems to devalue what the USA is asserted to stand for.





There is no perfect resolution of all this, and the issue exists in the UK of GB and NI as well. Nobody should feel inclined nor obliged to apply nor accept such qualification anywhere in the world. My country is of relatively ancient origin compared to the USA and has itself a shameful history of imperial English expansion within the British Isles.





The United Kingdom could be described as essentially an English empire which perpetrated over millennia the same type of crimes as the settlers in the New World have perfected more recently.





So maybe qualified Americans are much happier when distinguishing themselves from the oppressors - but they should be respected and allowed to use there own names for themselves and not any imposed by European immigrants and their descendants.





In truth the description of people as Americans has to include the people of the the whole of the north and south American continents. José Martí (my hero) called that "our America".





Usanian might be a less racist description for the people of the USA. As might be Ukanian for the people of the UK of GB and NI?