A native person is someone who was born in a place or whose people came from that place. It is acceptable when applied to whites, possibly racist when applied to others. Compare:
- native of England
- native of Kenya
That bad colonial smell comes mainly from the British Empire.
By the 1630s it meant “a non-white original inhabitant of a country” – in other words, the people whose lands whites were taking over, like the American Indians.
By the 1800s it gained a clear racist edge as white rule spread quickly across North America, Australia, the Pacific, Africa and Asia.
By 1950 it meant something like the following at its worst, as the “Oxford English Dictionary” informs us:
‘Native’ can be approximated … Greedy for beads … and alcoholic drinks. Suspect of cannibalism. Addicted to drumbeating and lewd dancing. More or less naked. Sporadically treacherous. Probably polygamous and simultaneously promiscuous. Picturesque. Comic when trying to speak English or otherwise ape white ways.
Stereotypes like these helped to excuse their dispossession by whites. As British world power sank after 1945, so did use of the word.
By the 1980s “indigenous peoples” had become more common than “native peoples”.
“Indigenous” means pretty much the same thing but it does not sound as racist since whites did not use it much in their skinhead glory days of the 1800s and early 1900s. But already in the 2010s “indigenous” sounds like a well-meaning white person’s way of saying “tribal”, meaning “not civilized”. Even worse, “indigenous” is applied to plants and animals but almost never to white people, which makes it seem like indigenous people are part of nature, not a part of human society with rights.
Enter “Native”: By the 1950s American Indians began reclaiming the word “native”, writing it with a capital N. Thus the term “Native American”. “Native” is now applied more generally to all peoples native to the lands of the present-day U.S. and Canada before the European Expansion: Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, etc.
Beyond North America the word seems less common. This is partly because other terms are used for pre-Expansion peoples in other countries:
- Australia: Aboriginal, Aborigine
- New Zealand: Maori
- Israel: Palestinians
- South Africa: black South Africans
In New Zealand and Israel natives belong to a single ethnic group; in South Africa, to the same (Western-defined) race. Thus no need to use a more general term. Many would not regard Palestinians or black South Africans as “indigenous” because they are seen as “civilized” (living in cities).
Does it make sense to have a common term for these people? Yes, because they all face issues of settler colonialism taking over their land and, in many cases, the education of their young. It is a process that goes back to Columbus and is still going on. “Indigenous” is already the wrong word. “Native” still sounds too racist, but that seems to be changing. Best would be a word that makes clear their cultural and land rights.
See also:
- Other terms:
- Christopher Columbus
- White Saviour trope
- Natives through the National Geographic lens – here “native” means non-Westerner
- Native Americans according to Western thought: a brief history
Instead of native or indigenous we could us original. It has a positive connotation as it implies legitimacy.
As opposed to “aboriginal” which seems it would mean the opposite. “Abnormal”, a far more common word, means not normal, so it follows that “aboriginal” would mean not original.
Maybe we need a common word for the non original people also?
Foreign, alien, unoriginal, but lets not get too crazy as I would be one of these, as well.
LikeLike
In Australia we normally use “Aboriginal” or “Torres Strait Islander”. The term “Aborigine” is actually considered to be offensive and is no longer in wide use.
‘Indigenous’ is also used as an all-embracing term for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In the early 2000s there was a movement to revert to the term as it was thought to stress the fact that they were (and are) the original owners of the land.
@abagond I wonder what your thoughts are on the use of the term ‘Indigenous’ if it has these positive connotations?
LikeLike
I think original would be right, it is selfexplanatory. As it is, it is being used in some situations and in finnish, for example: Amerikan alkuperäisasukkaat. The original people of America etc. This term is more official and usually used when discussing of any original people anywhere. Alkuperäiset australialaiset = original australians. Australian alkuperäisasukkaat = The original people of Australia.
HOWEVER the word Indian, intiaani, is still in use in finnish since the word for Indian proper, a person from India is different: Intialainen = a person from India. So in finnish intiaani = native american, alkuperäisasukas = orginal people (individual), intiaLAINEN = a person from India.
On that vein, amerikkaLAINEN = an american. this term includes all the whites and blacks and whom ever who is seen as american. Black pro athletes in Finland are American athletes. Not blacks or whites. Very very seldom, if at all the term black/white even shows up.
LikeLike
Is “mudsquatter” acceptable?
LikeLike
@futurodella”nazi”one perhaps it’s your mind that’s mired in the mud.
LikeLike
[…] A native person is someone who was born in a place or whose people come from that place. It is acceptable when applied to whites, possibly racist when applied to others. Compare: native of England … […]
LikeLike
White racist groups in the UK use the term “aboriginal” a lot to refer to themselves. They seem to think the idea of indigenous Britons supports their anti-immigration views.
LikeLike
Oops. I meant “indigenous”, not “aboriginal” above ^
LikeLike
.This is a very interesting and informative and enlightening post. This word native can have different meanings depending on who it’s applied to.
LikeLike
That 1950’s Oxford English Dictionary version I am not surprised about that.
LikeLike
A few thoughts, in no particular order: Any term like “Indian,” “Native American,” “indigenous peoples,” etc. is going to, by virtue of history, going to be problematic and potentially have negative connotations. I have actually seen “Indian” enter more popular use recently among scholars. One of the biggest factors, is that due to the so-named “Columbian Exchange”–which transferred plants, animals, people, and diseases–around the world, 90% of all peoples from an estimated 50-100 million living in present-day North and South America died within one generation of 1492. Virtually all, though not all for sure, of these (speaking in percentages) were from accidental disease exchanges. “Indian” and i(ts parallel terms) is also problematic because it currently refers to over 400 distinct “nations,” “groups,” “entities,” “tribes” – pick your term – located in the geographic area of the United States. The same basic situation makes “black,” “white,” and all other racialized terms problematic. They refer to very large groups of people artificially group by powers at be over a really long time.
LikeLike
I’m interested in this (new to me) trend with white racists here in America referring to themselves as “native”. For example a bumper sticker with the word native right next to the confederate flag. I should write a book.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Original Americans and/or First Nations would be better than Native Americans because everyone born in America is a native American, and you can’t hear capital letters in spoken conversation.
LikeLike
@ pegodaaj
I agree about the term “Indian”. If you look at the cultural maps of pre-Columbian North America, they had nothing in common at the cultural level. Historically what they have in common is their dispossession by the European Expansion, but they have that in common with “natives” worldwide. At that rate the Maori or Palestinians are “Indians”.
I agree that “black” and “white” have the same trouble worldwide, BUT NOT within the U.S., where for the most part they function as ethnic groups due to segregation and their different histories and identities.
LikeLike
@ wordynerdygirl
The term “Aborigines” still outnumbers “Aboriginals” on Australian websites nearly two to one. That is down, however, from three to one in 2002.
From what I understand, the Australian government uses only “Aboriginals” while the people themselves use both interchangeably.
To me “indigenous” suggests “of the land” but not ownership. After all, plants are also indigenous. “First Nations” or even “Original Australians” is better in my opinion.
LikeLike
@ Solesearch
I like that: “Original Americans”. Everyone knows just who you mean and has none of the ambiguity of “Indian” or “Native American”.
“Alien Americans” would be cool except that most people would think you meant Mexicans, not seeing the parallel. But some word like that is needed.
LikeLike
I just had a thought, the phrase “The natives are restless.” This has some racist undertones to me. It reminds me of the thread Abagond did about the “White Proverbs”. I just thought I would add this comment on since it came to my mind.
LikeLike
Alien Americans? It makes me think of extraterresrials. LOL. I’m just saying.
LikeLike
[…] A native person is someone who was born in a place or whose people come from that place. It is acceptable when applied to whites, possibly racist when applied to others. Compare: native of England … […]
LikeLike
[…] The term “native” (abagond.wordpress.com) […]
LikeLike
I love seeing people in traditional dress. I can’t wait to take a trip to Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Fiji, PNG, and the Andaman Island.
Abagond, have you done a post on the Jarawa people of the Andaman Islands?
LikeLike
[…] The term “native” […]
LikeLike
This is the most god awful article I think my eyes have ever gandered upon.
LikeLike