The Use of Racial and Ethnic Terms in America: Management by Manipulation Author(s): Jack D. Forbes Reviewed work(s): Source: Wicazo Sa Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 53-65 Published by: University of Minnesota Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1409097 . Accessed: 06/01/2013 23:45 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of Minnesota Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Wicazo Sa Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded on Sun, 6 Jan 2013 23:45:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Use of Racial and Ethnic Terms in America: Management by Manipulation by JackD. Forbes The continentof America,also known as the Middle Alberico rather than Amerigo. It may well be that the Continentor the WesternHemisphere is subdividedinto nameAmerica is not derivedfrom his name,but we know North America,Central America and South America. for sure that it was first applied to South America or Indigenouspeoples have a bit of a problem,however, CentralAmerica and not to the areaof the United States. in that:(1) the United Statesand its dominant European- From the early 1500s until the mid-1700s, the only origin citizens have attempted to pre-empt the terms people called Americans were American First Nations Americaand American;and (2) there has been a strong People.Similarly the people called Mexicans,Canadians, tendency,especially since the 1780s,to deny to Indigenous Brazilians,Peruvians, etc., were all our own NativePeople. Americansthe right to use the name of their own land. In 1578, for example,George Best of Britainwrote about As a matterof fact,there is a strongtendency to also deny "thoseAmericans and Indians"by which he referredto Native People the use of the name of any land within our NativeAmerican ancestors as Americansand the peo- America,such as being Brazilian,Mexican, Canadian, and ple of India and Indonesia as Indians. In 1650 a Dutch so on, unless the term "Indian"is also attached, as in work referredto the Algonkiansof the Manhattanarea as "BrazilianIndian" (as "AmericanIndian" is used instead "theAmericans or Natives".In 1771 a Dutch dictionary of "American"). noted that "the Americansare red in their skins"and so Some people believe that America as a name stems on. As late as 1845another Dutch dictionarydefined mes- from the mountain rangeknown as Ameriquelocated in tizos (metis) as being children of a "European"and an Nicaragua.Others believe that it stems from a word com- "American"parent. mon to severalAmerican languages of the Caribbeanand English usage is very little different.John WVesley,in South America, namely Maraca (pronounced maraca, 1747, referredto FirstNations People of Georgiaas "the maraca,and mbaraca).This word, meaning rattle or gourd, Americans."The Quakertraveler, William Bartram,after is found as a place name in Venezuela (Maracapana, a lengthy tour among the Creeks, Cherokees, and Maracay,Maracaibo), Trinidad (Maracas), Puerto Rico Choctawsin the 1770s,refers to them as "theAmericans." (Maracayu,etc.), Brazil (Maraca, Itamaraca) and elsewhere. Samuel Johnson's Dictionary (1827 edition) has: Manyvery earlymaps of the Caribbeanregion show "American [from America]. An aboriginal native of an island located to the northwest of Venezuela (where America;an inhabitantof America."The dictionarythen Nicaraguais actuallylocated) called "tamaraque"which quotes Milton ("Such of late/Columbus found the has been interpretedas t. amaraquestanding for tierraor American/so girt/with feather'd cincture...."), and terra (land) of Amaraque.All of this is before America Addisonfrom the Spectator("The Americans believe that first appearedas a name on the mainland roughly in the all creatureshave souls, not only men and women, but areaof Venezuela. brutes,vegetables, ... stones"). Most of us have probablybeen taught that America In 1875 CharlesMaclaren in a British encyclopedia as a name is derived from that of Amerigo Vespucci, a wroteof "theAmerican race," "the color of the Americans," notorious liar and enslaverof Native people. Strangely "theAmerican natives" and "theAmericans" by which he enough, Vespucci'sfirst name is more often recordedas meant"the Americans of indigenousraces." More recent- Fall 1995 Wicazo Sa Review 53 This content downloaded on Sun, 6 Jan 2013 23:45:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ly (1986), the Chronicleof Higher Educationnoted that are also Indiansby virtue of being derivedfrom pre-1948 "ScientistsFind Evidence of EarliestAmericans" in north- India.If this trendcontinues, the numberof "realIndians" easternBrazil (32,000 years old). Clearlythese Hearliest will catch up with the Bureau of the Census' figures for Americans"were not United Statesians! U.S.-derived"American Indians" sometime between 2000 Nonetheless, beginning in the 1740s-1780s British and 2010. (By 1980 Asian Indians alreadyoutnumbered newspapersalso began to referto theirBritish subjects on Native Americansin the northeasternU.S.) Largenum- the Atlanticseaboard as Americansin the sense of Britons bers of "RealIndians" are also migratingto Canadaand living in America or, as they often put it, in North havebeen presentin Trinidad,Guyana and other partsof America.After the United Statesbecame independentin the Caribbean for years. Many of these Caribbean the 1780s,its new citizensbegan to referto themselvesas "Indians"are also moving north to the U.S. and Canada. Americans,trying perhapsto identifywith the land and In any case,the "wildIndian" of the San Franciscoad severtheir connections with Europe. was certainlynot a Lakota,not a Delaware! It is not correct to refer to the United States as Who are the "real"Indians then? Ironically, the immi- America.The USA is "of America,"and that is different. grationof a million or so AsianIndians to North America Nonetheless,USA governmentpropaganda and popular comes at the precise time when some indigenous people usagehave promotedthe use of "American"as belonging are trying to deny "Indian"status to personswho are not exclusivelyto the people of the United States,and espe- recognizedas such by a United Statesfederally-recognized ciallyto the European-derivedpeople. Very often persons tribal or band governmentor who lack some document of African, Asian, and indigenous ancestry have been which identifiesthem as being "Indian." known as Negroes, Colored, Blacks, Indians, Savages, But are any of us (who are of indigenousAmerican Redskins,or other "nicknames"or by hyphenatedterms descent) really Indians anyway?Should we fight over a such as Chinese-Americans,etc. The word"American" has name which is claimed by the more than 700,000,000 been used, in short, as a racial-ideological weapon people of India,by their government,and by millions of designedto give priorityto White personsand peripher- Indians living overseasfrom SouthAfrica to Britain? al (and "foreign")status to non-Whites.' The name "Indian"is derivedfrom "India"which in Of course, the Spaniards in 1492 and thereafter turn comes from "Indos,"an ancient Greekand Roman thought of America by the name India and a few maps name for the area now known as Pakistan and India. referto it as Nova India afterits separationfrom the real "Indos"comes from"Indus," the name of the mightyriver India was realized.So long as Americawas thought of as of western India (now Pakistan). India it was perhapslegitimate to referto the native peo- When Columbussailed westward from Spainin 1492 ple as "Indians"but that became less proper once the it was his intentionto reachIndia and especiallythat east- name Americabecame dominant in usage. ern part of Indiawhich he called"India extra gangem" or Laterstill "Indian" tended to becomea negativecaste- India east of the GangesRiver. This vast region included like term ("indio"in Spanish and Portuguesezones) or SoutheastAsia, the EastIndies, China and Japan.So when the equivalentof wild, savage,brutish, or alien enemy in Columbus reachedthe Bahamashe began to call our rel- most parts of America. Now the continued use of atives"indios" in Spanishand "indos"in Latin.This name "Indian"for FirstAmericans has become very problem- became "Indiani"in Italianand "Indian"in English. atic, becauseof a largemigration from India. But the Spaniardsfor severalcenturies believed that A San Francisco newspaper ran an advertisement "India"or "the Indies"included the entire area from the with big letters:"Wild Indian discovered in downtown mid-Atlanticwestward to old India and the ArabianSea. San Francisco."I felt like calling up the advertiser,(the Thus Filipinos, Hawaiians, Polynesians, Chinese and New Delhi restaurant)to complainabout the ad'sstereo- Japanesewere all "indios"to the Spaniardsand to the type. But then it occurred to me that these were "real Portugueseas well. The Inuit peoples of the north were Indians"from India poking fun at "Indians." every bit as much "Indians"as were any other peoples of In 1980there were 361,544 Indiansfrom Indiain the Nova India (New India) or WestIndia, alternative names United States.By 1990 their numbershad