Both "Indian" and "Native American" are unacceptable linguistic butcherings of what these people are...

If anything, "Native American" is complimentary as many tribes were not native to the area they were in when Europeans arrived, having only achieved it due to wandering in because the entire landmass was fucking empty in most places, or because they murdered the original inhabitants and took their land.

indians are enough for every indio in the american continent

Indian is fine, we call them "indios" in Spanish after all. Don't make it confusing.

Dirty redskin devils seems fine.

Interesting.

So what's your opinion on "white," "black," and "Asian?"
Faggot.

>If anything, "Native American" is complimentary as many tribes were not native to the area they were in when Europeans arrived, having only achieved it due to wandering in

As opposed to what, popping into existence there? Nobody is "native" to anywhere if you go back far enough.

I was going to say Ethiopians are, but then I realized the Khoisan are significantly older than them.

Not OP, but all three of those are bullshit too. Especially black and Asian if you get down to it.

This; it's like if we started calling all white people "Deutsch" for no reason.

Those are ethnicities not races you retarded fuck.

Unless you think Zulu or Akan is a race kill yourself.

American Mongols is the correct term.

Shut up. They're Indians.

They're the only people we play this retarded name game with. Do you think the British chose their name? No, foreigners named their land and it stuck.

>or because they murdered the original inhabitants and took their land.
Are you one of those "white people wuz everywhere until those violent natives murdered the original white settlers and replaced them!"
Because that only really applies to europe where the indo-euros killed the peaceful European natives.

>You weren't raised in the traditional culture of your people on their own sovereign nation's land? Then you aren't part of them and shouldn't include them in your ancestry.

Why should I be less accurate in the mapping of my family history just to placate your feelings?

Does it make you feel less special or something?

>the original inhabitants of the Americas

WE

WUZ

SOLUTREANS

No Indians are the people in India.
>Because that only really applies to europe where the indo-euros killed the peaceful European natives.
The who? There were no humans in Europe before Indo-Europeans just Neanderthals.

Read it somewhere on /pol, can't remember the specifics.
Just know the user said that there was a group of european natives that were peaceful as all hell ( built shit that would require cooperation dragging stones from miles around ) then a second group came in and murdered them
Feel free to disregard, I can't remember it to the level I can't even remember what to google to confirm the information.
...And trying to google it with vague terms doesn't give me anything but about native americans. Great. I'll just have to wait for that user to show up again I guess.

>There were no humans in Europe before Indo-Europeans

Die!

Not only were there humans in Europe before and during the Neolithic Revolution (!ANATOLIAN FARMERS!), Cro-Magnon was contemporary with Neanderthal.

>Native American
>Native

Exactly, they aren't even native.

Whites may have been in the Americas before Viking contact. People theorize but know nothing inclusive. Also those "peaceful" pre-indo Europeans were whiter than the European migrators

I call them injuns and that's what they are.

The genome sequencing of a hunter-gatherer who lived in what is now Spain helped build the case that Europe was home to blue-eyed but dark-skinned people. This man, however, lived just 7,000 years ago. The researchers write that their analysis suggests that light skin was not yet widespread and ubiquitous in Europe at the time.

The new data confirm that about 8,500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.

But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7,700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.

They're savages. Barely even human.

Can someone explain how are they native while white Americans are not? Both of them were both in America, both of them had ancestors that came from elsewhere.

>Also those "peaceful" pre-indo Europeans were whiter than the European migrators
And? Did I imply otherwise.

There shouldn't be because they all should be dead and all the traces of their existence removed.

We should call them Turks instead :)

>European natives.
>peaceful
kek no

>You weren't raised in the traditional culture of your people on their own sovereign nation's land? Then you aren't part of them
Obviously.
>and shouldn't include them in your ancestry.
No. Whether you're part of the culture of the people you're descended from does not change the empirical, genetic fact that you're descended from them. That someone who was not raised in, say, Onondaga culture shouldn't make a big deal of how Onondaga they are, because they're not? That makes perfect sense. That they should deny being of Onondaga descent? Ridiculous.

Race is a spook.

>Tiger Lily will never give you a footjob

That's the real tragedy here where's *my* parade eh? EH??

the memes about political correctness where the "oppressed" people invent a new "acceptable" term to be used every 20 years are starting to become true

I'm starting to think the whole movement is just a psyop by marketing/PR firms

>Native American" are unacceptable
why tho?

SAVAGES! SAVAGES!

He didn't say those were races lul

He's talking about Neolithic farmers from the Middle East and brown West European Hunter Gatherers.

It's a shame that the Central, South, and West Euros all died out. Blue eyes look cool on dark skin.

Just call them Amerindians. No need for such a fuss

American Indian is the scholarly term and the term that most American Indians prefer. "native american" isn't even correct because they were native to Asia and before that Africa so why do we randomly draw a line? Humans are not "native" anywhere but Africa, it makes sense to call people by what their most recent incarnations refer to themselves as, which happens to be American Indian.

but people who look like that still exist user

Earliest recorded boner in my human history was for tiger-lilly. That fucking sexy little red bitch.

Nican Tlaca

I asked a native what I should call him and he said Indian was fine. I think he was a Chinook but he didn't seem to put much stock in his heritage.

>There is no single "Indian Race". You're a Chippewa, Ojibwe, Ottawa, Mohawk, Cree, etc.
Oh, dear god, shut the fuck up.

Europeans, Indians (from actual India), Arabs and so on are also not homogenous groups, but it's still sometimes useful to refer to them collectively. Nobody thinks it means Portuguese people are the same as Swedes when you refer to them both as "Europeans."

There's no good term for native groups as a collective. There are times when such a word would be useful. Ergo its absence is bad. Now shut the fuck up.

that term is american. Titles don't have to make sense, none of the actual racial titles do either. Their are black people that are lighter skinned than some white people, "asians" are very diverse, from your actual Indians to the nomads in the north and everything in between. It doesn't matter if "Indian" doesn't make sense because none of them do. It's what they are referred to as, it's what they want to be called, so there's no sense in forcing it to make sense when nothing else does.

Yeah, but they aren't common.

Then again, neither are blue eyes.

>who is joe gatto

>that term is american

EVEN WORSE THAN BEFORE

YOU FAIL

you're hopeless.

Right, and those terms work because there is linguistic, cultural, genetic, and often religious connections between the groups.

The various tribes of America share none of that barring the two facts that we lived on the continent before Europeans showed up and the fact that at various points in our ancient history a multitude of migratory waves came across a general area, migrated south, and ended up here. I'm Sault Chippewa, I share NOTHING in common with the fucking Hopi. Don't shoehorn me into your mindless categories you stupid liberal.

/thread

but... I am Deutsche

Or (chubby) Sal Vulcano

>linguistic, cultural, genetic, and/or religious connections
>between all Europeans, between all Asians, between all Middle-Easterners

>I'm Sault Chippewa
You're also ignorant as fuck.

If you knew even one goddamn thing about any two countries in Europe or Asia, you wouldn't have made that post.

You're damn right the Koreans have more in common with the Chinese than the Inuit do with the Selk'nam, and that the Danes have more in common with the French than the Algoquin have with the Aztec.

You're not just ignorant, you're uneducated and don't have the slightest clue about what you're talking about other than that facts hurt your feelings.

>it's what they want to be called,

Lol no the jury is out on that but most who are in the Indian camp is soley because changing anything in American society is an impossible task like switching to metric, puclic transportation or expanding shit like tap to pay or the internet.

The again Negro used to be the term of the day for blacks back in the day.

Also people forget that "Aboriginal" is a word

>"native american" isn't even correct because they were native to Asia and before that Africa so why do we randomly draw a line? Humans are not "native" anywhere but Africa,

Nigga that's pure autism. Everyone gets what is meant by that if you aren't anal.

OP is strawmanning.

>read somewhere on /pol/

AND that's all I need to read from your post to know it should be disregarded.

>the Koreans have more in common with the Chinese than the Inuit do with the Selk'nam
>the Danes have more in common with the French than the Algoquin have with the Aztec
>facts
Please, please stop. You're embarrassing yourself, and everyone reading your posts is embarrassed for you.
For an analogy, you are comparing apples to oranges and acting as authority on which apples or oranges are applier or orangier than others, then saying that every apple should be known by it's specific strain (Granny Smith, Gala, etc.) instead of using the word "Apples" at all, yet it's totally okay to just call oranges, lemons, and limes "Citrus" because you seem to hold the opinion that an orange has more in common with a lime than a Red Delicious apple has in common with a Golden Delicious apple. Look, I can be retarded too:
>German culture is nothing like Russian culture, therefore the term "European" should be abolished despite it not referring to culture at all!
>Saudi Arabian culture is nothing like Lebanese culture! The term "Middle Eastern" should be abolished despite it not referring to culture at all!
You mention feelings, yet by your own admission, you are more personally invested in this nomenclature than anyone else here, since it actually involves you. In fact, you seem to be one of the very few, even among your own people, who seem to have a problem with the term "native" referring to a set of physical racial characteristics, so I have reason to believe that you're actually the one getting emotional and ignoring facts.

This is Veeky Forums, not /pol/, calling me a "liberal" isn't an insult here. It's also pretty meaningless given that nothing I wrote even hinted at politics.

I'm not a fucking activist. I'm not trying to serve you up a Pan-American-Indian identity. I don't give a shit about that. I'm approaching this from an anthropological standpoint, not a political one; that's what I'm trained to do, and that's what's appropriate given the theme of this board. If I want to refer to a particular linguistic or culture group, I'll do so; I'll say Mexica or Inca or Athabaskan or Ojibwe or Pueblo or Mississippian or Iroquois, and yes, the fact that I'm listing linguistic, cultural and political groupings together is deliberate.

Sometimes it's still useful -- hell, necessary -- to refer to ALL THE INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS of the Americas, together. It just is. Sorry if that pisses you off.
>This paper attempts to address the question of why the [indigenous peoples of the Americas] were so susceptible to European diseases.
>Recent evidence suggests that Kennewick Man might, in fact, have been [Indian] after all, and not Polynesian as previously suspected.
>The 1990 passage of NAGPRA attempted to resolve long-standing conflicts between [Native Americans] and archaeologists.
I pulled those out of my ass. I could do this all day.

Sometimes you have to refer to all the indigenous groups as a collective, and when you do, there's no good term. "Aboriginal" is ambiguous and sometimes offensive. "First Nation" is specific to Canada. "Indian" is ambiguous, sometimes offensive, and stupid. "Native American" is cumbersome. "Indigenous peoples" is hella cumbersome.

I don't have a solution. Obviously it's not a good idea to just pick a word from some random fucking tribe's language and apply it to people from across the continent. But it's stupid to go, "Dude, they're separate cultures, refer to them individually or not at all!" Sometimes that doesn't work.

Are these examples of blue eyes and dark skin?

How pale are you, exactly?

Why can't we go back to the over 20 race system? It makes so much more sense and is more thorough.

How about Treeniggers?

If the Jews and globalists keep getting their way there might just be a one race system soon.

>There's no good term for native groups as a collective. There are times when such a word would be useful. Ergo its absence is bad. Now shut the fuck up.

What's wrong with native american then?

If not that, what about, Mesoamerican, Andean, etc?

They're not natives any more than whites are.

Semantics. Technically nothing is native.

Africans are. Though you could argue that it's a big continent and they've all moved around a lot in it so none of them are really native to where they now are.

>Africans are.

Only arbitrarily. Humans evolved from early hominds and those evolvesd from earlier primates and you can go all the way back to synapisds and whatever lobed fish first went on land and so on till whatever group of amino acids happened to get struck by lightening billions of years ago.

>implying lumping Irish, North Africans, and Palistinians together with the British colonialists AND the evil nazis they fought against in ww2 as a rhetorical tool to shut down political dissent isn't equally bullshit

Many tribes use the term First Nations but alot of us just say Native or which ever tribe they are from.

and no we aren't fucking Asians. Land bridge theories have been debunked years ago.

No it hasn't. In fact, you guys came to America earlier than most people realized.

You're of the same race but only by technicality, kinda like Polynesians.

>Land bridge theories have been debunked years ago.
Then how did you get to the Americas? By boat? And you must have ultimately come from SOMEWHERE else.

>Native American
That is pretty accurate, desu

Thats a load of bullshit, the only native humans of Europe are white people.

Natives do some kind of mental gymnastics that allows them to be truly native.

redskins

They're fucking red.

You got white, red, black, brown and yellow.

That's it. It's real fucking simple.

>Many tribes use the term First Nations
Only in Cucknadia, leaf

Native American pakis

I actually kinda like first nation as a blanket term and I'm not even canadian. It implies that they were the first to settle in the continents without denying other peoples nativeness after so many generations.
It also has a certain regal flair to it.

>noble savage fallacy