BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

People from India are HINDU, not “Indian.”

by David Yeagley · October 22, 2006 · 22 Comments ·

Historically, people who come from the Indus river and eastward, were called Hindu. It is very important that they be referred to with the word Hindu, and not “Indian.” Historically, Hindu did not indicate the religion per se, but the people, their culture, and everything associated with them.

In the English language, still the language of America, the word “Indian” was first used in reference to the indigenous peoples of the Western hemisphere, the North, Central, and South American continents. Yes, it was mistaken, but, that is beside the point. The historical name for the indigenous people of the Americas is Indian.

Why is this important? Here is a reference from an article I published on VDARE.com, 12-29-2003:

The Tatar Relation manuscript (ca.1247), written in Latin, already referred to the Asian sub-continent people of the “Sindhus” (the Sanskrit word for “river”) as Indiam. In English, as early as the 6th century, A.D., Boethius used the terms “India,” “Indus,” and “Indea” in his De consolatione philosophiae.

Of course, Boethius was a Roman, and wrote in Latin. His work was translated into English in the late 9th century. More English translations followed. Continuing in the VDARE article:

The Persian pronunciation of “Indus” was of course “hindus,” with the sounded “h.” One Hindu authority says such a term didn’t enter the “Hindu” vocabulary until the 7th century, or the age of Islam.

But not until 1662 did the Persian term appear in English, in the translations of John Davies (of Kidwell). By the next century, Anglo-Americans referred to people from the Indus as “Hindus.” The only people whom they called “Indians” were the inhabitants of the Americas.

And from another VDARE article I posted, October 10, 2004:

However, the first written use of the word “Indian” in English is in 1566, in John Alday’s translation of Boaystuau’s Theatrum mundi, in which he refers to “an Indian philosopher named Diphileus”–a Greek name, no less.

I am offended by this confusion in modern day America, confusion which is created by the abundant presence of Hindu people referred to as “Indians.” This, in effect, is yet another and very serious assault on the identity of the American Indian.

Thus, the typical modern headline in American papers: Indian Communisty Burgeoning in America. Of course, the article has to do with Hindus, not American Indian. And recently there appeared this entry on the blog, aboutbloginfo.com: “Fact about India.” It is a strange collection of information about American Indians (Seminole), and it has my name and a name of one of my articles (It’s the Casinos, Stupid). It has nothing to do with India, or Hindu people. Yet, is listed as “Fact about India.”

Just search the single word “Indian” on Yahoo and Hindu people and culture are the first several listings. This is in English, of course. Google is little better.

This is an unnecessary confusion of race, culture, religion, and identity. This, of course, is the absolute delight of the Leftists, i.e., the Marxist, i.e., the Communists, the liberals, the socialists, whatever. They desire to eliminate all boundaries, all differences, and all in the name of equality. Yes, they’ll use a race or a culture to create tumult and rebellion against any establishment. It’s call ed racial agitation. This is what the Black Panthers was all about, and what the American Indian Movement was all about. The same white socialists created both parties.

I resent it. The name American Indian, or just Indian, in America, in American history, is too sacred to me. It means too much to too many people who are native of this land, more native than anyone else. That a horde of foreigners would come, bringing the same name–unnecessarily, is unacceptable to me. These people are Hindu, not “Indian.” I will never refer to a person from India as “Indian,” but always call them by the name which is more similar to their own name, sindhu, Sanskrit for “river.”

I am offended to call them by the historical name of my own people. This is America, not the world. The people from India have another name by which they were historically known, and by which they should ever be known. American Indians don’t have another such name. “Native American” is false, for anyone born here is technically “native” of America. “Indigenous” is to animalistic for me, and degrading. Too inhuman. Plants are “indigenous.”

American Indians have enough problems without this unnecessary confusion of identity. American Indians should file suit, demanding that people from India be referred to as Hindu, not “Indian.” Mark my words. In due time, the Hindus called “Indian” will eventually encroach upon the honor and priviledges of being American Indian. Every other darky in the world has already been at it. With the advantage of the improper name “Indian” so profusely applied to them, they stand in a position of great advantage. Perhaps no Hindus have even thought of such a thing. But the white anti-American racists of the Left have thought of it. You can be sure of that.


This man is not an American Indian, but a Hindu, his true name..

Posted by David Yeagley · October 22, 2006 · 10:08 pm CT · ·

Tags: Bad Eagle Journal




Read More Journal Posts »

22 responses so far ↓

  • 1 comanchemoon // Oct 23, 2006 at 8:36 am   

    Tom,

    Go to bed.

    Dr. Y, I am comfortable with being called Indian, Native American, American Indian. Most people can tell the Hindus from the American Native, especially when they open their mouths.

    I am not comfortable with the word Indigenious, but some would rather used this, we have to give those people their space. Ignore Tom, but there are a lot people out there that are fighting for rights to use different Titles. I see nothing wrong as long as WE know who and educate our young to know they are Native American Indians. Our older people have been held down so long trying to avoid the issue, now the New Age People are bringing our heritage out and We are beginning to be totally at Peace with being Indian in this 20th century. Nothing like going to a Pow-Wow and seeing the very young behind the Drum and Dancing too. They leave the Pow and enter the world of the Whites, totally comfortable. People like Tom are the ones that think “the only good Indian is a dead one”.

    CM

  • 2 comanchemoon // Oct 23, 2006 at 9:11 am   

    Dr,

    Numunu is a fairly new word for us Comanche, maybe not my mother and before, but it is for me and now the young ones think that is the only thing we should be called, which is a good thing. I am sure all the other Nations are doing the same, going back to their original names. But I wonder if todays history books have these terms in them?

    In my day the word Savage is what we were called.Those are the Terms I resent, blanket indian, savage, redskin, wooden indian, Sqaw, drunken indian, Chief, (we have no Chiefs) they are elected officials. It continues to amaze me how close we are to the days when only horses and teepees were the in thing. Oklahoma is going to be 100 yrs old in 1007, the Native Americans population need to rally together and make this one that the whites will not soon forget, I don’t mean to radical, but just be involved. I’m sure a lot are planning, but it should be every Indian Nation in the State should be planning for the Party. After all the name means “Land of the Redman” Choctaw word, as I’m sure you know.

    Lets let them know we are proud to be Indian, Native American Indian, Numunu, Indigenious. If were not invited to the party, we will find out where they are being held and go anyway, we are why Oklahoma was established, lets not let them forget.

    CM

  • 3 David Yeagley // Oct 23, 2006 at 10:08 am   

    Many people don’t realize how “pro-Indian” I really am! I’m terribly protective of our glory. I will not share it with another people.

    Everyone wants to cash in on the Indian glory. I reject all them, all of the pretenders, the liberals, and I severely reprimand those Indians who are mistakenly liberal, willing to share–I should say give away–the honor of our warrior fathers.

    Tom? I delete his posts as soon as I see them. I have not been able to ban him from this Journal. This is a mystery to me.

  • 4 ecology // Oct 23, 2006 at 11:13 am   

    Indian pow wows have a different culture than us whities culture. It is a community. Not much of that left in whity world. Or is it WALLY world now? There but really hard to find. The new agers are weird to me. However they did do some good with recognition. Thats about it tho. What do u expect when a society is run by economic theories based on infinite growth, consumerism and communism? I expect NOTHING therefore a nothing society. Hollow yet crowded and overpopulated. Bizzare. surreal.

  • 5 R // Oct 23, 2006 at 11:22 am   

    What gets me is these older books that refer to Indians (not American Indians, but Indians) and then refer to European Americans as “Americans”. It’s like they are trying to claim that whites were the original Americans or some nonsense like that. It’s very arrogant and provocative.

    Also, some whites resent the title Native Americans to describe original Americans and think that anyone born in America is a “Native Americans” (which is true for the verb “native American”, but not the noun “Native Americans”). I found out that the Native American label came from the US Census to categorize American Indians, Aleuts, Inuits, and Samoans from Hawaii in order to distinguish them from the imported peoples. It is not some “politically correct” label sought out by American Indians to change their name.

  • 6 David Yeagley // Oct 23, 2006 at 12:26 pm   

    Yes, Ray, but “Native American” (from the late 70′s census I believe) reflects the racist liberal concept. American Indian is what we were before. THere was not need to change it. It was an assault from the start. It was utterly ambiguous, which was the purpose and point. I do not for a minute trust that it was to distinguish American Indians from foreigners. “American Indian” already distinguished us from all others.

    “Native American” was a blend-all scheme, which very quickly included all “indigenous” peoples of the western hemisphere. And now these same people are considered “American Indian” as a result! Indians of the Americas. See? It’s all one happy skin, one happy anti-whitey skin.

    I think it’s degrading, and I want to part of it.
    HINDU eliminates more than half of the problem.
    And there was no giant confusion of AMerican Indians with HINDU people when this “Native American” fiasco was slapped on us.

  • 7 R // Oct 23, 2006 at 2:06 pm   

    I agree on the hindu or Asian Indian confusion. I always figured Native American was an answer to the confusion of who is an Indian-American or an American Indian, lol. But from my understanding, the name started as a US Census classification term and just developed a life of it’s own from there. I never got too seriously into labels, the subject just doesn’t really push my buttons, but I admit getting a grin at watching all these white people react with envy to the title Native American – it just shows how much insecurity they have about who they really are and where they come from. I pretty much have the attitude – call me what you like, just don’t be degrading.

  • 8 Don Cicchetti // Oct 23, 2006 at 6:02 pm   

    Took my 5 year old to an Indian restaurant. Tandoori, not Fry Bread. Had a helluva time explaining why there were no Indians there…

    There are no easy solutions to this are there?

    What do you think of American Aboriginal?

    Doesn’t this term solve most of the problems?

    DC

  • 9 David Yeagley // Oct 23, 2006 at 6:53 pm   

    Census folk are notoriously liberal! They seek the inclusive, not the exclusive.

    Aboriginal is for the Australians.

    AMERICAN INDIAN is what we are, historically. I will accept no other name but our own individual tribal names, and those are usually given by other tribes! or by the French, and once in a while the tribes own name for itself.

    AMERICAN INDIAN is our legal, historical name. It’s in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. INDIAN. That’s us. The people from India are HINDU. Why is this not simple enough? Why is this not acceptable? Why is this not the answer. It is the truth. Is the truth not workable any more?

  • 10 Don Cicchetti // Oct 23, 2006 at 11:55 pm   

    Ok, as long as those two names, American and Indian are forever linked. That solves the confusion, honors the history, and reminds us all that you are American first.

    Now, we just need American Italians, American Jews, American Hispanics, etc etc…

    Americans first and always.

    DC

  • 11 David Yeagley // Oct 24, 2006 at 8:20 am   

    Funny how that turned out, huh? All the hyphenated names put America last. Italian-American, as opposed to American Italian.

    Well, in a way, “American” has strong meaning at the end of the name, too. I haven’t really taken issue with the way the hyphenated names go.

    I just want to make sure American Indians are not needlessly and insidiously obscured.

  • 12 Don Cicchetti // Oct 24, 2006 at 8:59 am   

    “I just want to make sure American Indians are not needlessly and insidiously obscured.”

    And of course, then there is then the elephant in the room of assimilation.

    I realize you are against intermarriage and are very interested in having American Indians an identifiable group into the future. How do you do this without lefty grievance-group politics? How does the group with perhaps the greatest grievance of all, not attempt to draw life and identity from the grievance?

    Of course, when you do so, the results are horrendous, as we have seen.

    I had a radical black acquaintance tell me that America is lucky that the Nation of Islam is not starting a race war and killing whites by the score! So I asked him what the result of such actions would be? Would we not see the Nation cut down by the black Americans in our military?

    What a sick and pernicious delusion these radicals live under! But is it not directly a result of identifying your group and yourself with a grievance instead of the virtues and beauty inherent in your people?

    And if you do not build a movement around a grievance, if you rise above such evil, why not assimilate?

    I very much like your idea of American Indians being the stepfathers of the country, but how do you achieve it, (and it requires a visible and unique group’s continued existence, does it not?) without a grievance to gather ’round?

    This troubles me. I do not see an easy answer.

    DC

  • 13 David Yeagley // Oct 24, 2006 at 9:28 am   

    I believe the Creator ordained race, for now anyway. To carelessly obliterate it seems dangerous to me. Not to idolize it, either, but, I believe we should honor it.

    And we don’t have to do as our parents did. We can make moves in another direction, however small and insignificant they may seem.

    I think consistency makes the blood circulate a little better. Not sure…

  • 14 Ray // Oct 24, 2006 at 12:59 pm   

    “And if you do not build a movement around a grievance, if you rise above such evil, why not assimilate?”

    Well, Don, maybe us Indians see full-fledged assimilation and abadonment of our cultures as evil.

    You non-Indians will never get it will you? You may be a good person Don, but are woefully deficient in understanding Indian issues. Most importantly, you seemingly can’t understand why Indians would want to remain part of their own cultures instead of being absorbed by whites?

    When this country is eventually overrun by Mexican immigrants and other non-western peoples, the day may come when they ask you the exact same question you’re putting to Indians. “Come on, you’re an “noble” people. We really respect your culture and beliefs, but why not just become one of us?”

    So, Don, how about it? Will you give up your own heritege as a white American just because your in the minority? I doubt it.

    Try and keep in mind that there are over 500 different Indian reservations in North America. Most have longer histories here than Europeans can possibley fathom. Remember that when you’re left scratching your head as to why Indians revere their own heritiges, just as much, if not more, than people of Europeans descent. I say this due to the United States, after only 200 years or so, selling its heritege down the sewer by allowing illegal immigration and such. Indians were overun, both by diseases and warfare.

    The United States will fall due to internal rot, the sort that allows a powerful nation to fall from within.

  • 15 ecology // Oct 24, 2006 at 1:24 pm   

    in 20 years we whites will be the minority. Thats a demogrpahic fact. Its really hard for most people to look ahead 1 day let alone 20 years i know that. But the hispanic legals and illegals are going to double possible triple in 20 years. its going to be very ugly. Im not sure folks realize the changes that are a comin! we are looking at 700 million total pop in only 20 years. Brutally fast. prepare them kids if your smart.

  • 16 ecology // Oct 24, 2006 at 1:28 pm   

    Hey doc if that hindu dudes an American Indian Im an American Indian! hahaha!

  • 17 concha // Oct 25, 2006 at 4:31 am   

    I think Twiggy ruined everything! She started the whole thinness craze–before her, it was considered attractive to be a normal weight, or even a little heavy. Anorexia causes low fertility rates, depletes women of their self-esteem, and ruins any chance of a healthy male/female coupling.
    Why do you white men demand that your women be so skinny? You are killing them, and any future for a family. Women need hips to carry and bear children–stop robbing them of their childbearing years.
    A whole generation of white women have grown up without having families because of this neurotic fixation on thinness. In thirty years social scientists will reflect on this insanity that infected white culture, and killed it off.

  • 18 R // Oct 25, 2006 at 1:41 pm   

    “A few more moons, a few more winters, and not one of the descendants of the mighty hosts that once moved over this broad land or lived in happy homes, protected by the Great Spirit, will remain to mourn over the graves of a people once more powerful and hopeful than yours. But why should I mourn at the untimely fate of my people? Tribe follows tribe, and nation follows nation, like the waves of the sea. It is the order of nature, and regret is useless. Your time of decay may be distant, but it will surely come, for even the White Man whose God walked and talked with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We will see. ”

    Chief Seattle, 1854

  • 19 David Yeagley // Oct 25, 2006 at 2:34 pm   

    Always beautiful words, from Chief Seattle. Only they often weren’t his words. Darn.

    Chief Seattle’s Thoughts

    Chief Seattle’s Speech

    Chief Seattle’s Letter

    Doesn’t mean that the thoughts are wrong or inappropriate, however. Just might mean that an Indian didn’t actually say them, or say them that way at all, but a white liberal said them instead, using the power of the Indian image to support one political agenda or another.

    Yes, there were liberals in the old days. They were much more romantic then, not violent, and not dishonest, other than putting words in Indians’ mouths… but we digress

  • 20 R // Oct 25, 2006 at 3:13 pm   

    However it was embellished or whoever wrote those words, the thoughts that people follow people like waves hitting the shore is true to nature. History, Science, and Anthropology have proven that to be true. Nothing in life remains static and never will – life is always evolving and changing. This country we live in is going to be alot different in the next 100 to 200 years, like Ecology says.

  • 21 ecology // Oct 25, 2006 at 3:32 pm   

    Yes it will be R. I mountaineer all the big peaks around the Nation and I also have an INTIMATE relationship with our life sustaining natural resources. I have several old school mountaineering friends and mentors. They show me where our aquifer recharge Glaciers were and are currently. it will blow the mind of desk jocky political talking heads. Ya know the one that think they know everything about everything and everyone. Ya know hot air blowing a$$holes? The one that really never leave their urban vapor lock chambers. Or the rural rednecks who never leave the seat of a machine. I know them well. Thats why i dont bother reading much that is out there.
    The glaciers are gone in 20 years that a fact. So Water wars that have never left this earth are going to intensify. Ya know people need water to live. Youd be surprised how many clones dont understand. Lets just population densities are going to be migrating and shrinking.
    to say tis going to get better is a joke. Yes it will get better when there is less people. Until then expect more of the same. and really Im not sure why everyone still focuses on things that really dont matter. Thast just the way it is. But I scoff at those that pontificate delusions of granduer.

  • 22 Don Cicchetti // Oct 26, 2006 at 8:13 am   

    Hello Ray, I did not write clearly. Actually, I hope very much for the same things you do.

    I wrote a more detailed response, but it is being held for approval.

    I hope it is printed here.

    best,

    Don

You must log in to post a comment.