[Aztlan] Indian ?

[Justin Kerr]

To all,
I scan the paragraph in question, it follows below:


Throughout this book, as the reader already will have noticed, I use the
term "Indian" to refer to the first inhabitants of the Americas. No question
about it, Indian is a confusing and historically inappropriate name.
Probably the most accurate descriptor for the original inhabitants of the
Americas is Americans. Actually using it, though, would be risking worse
confusion. In this book I try to refer to people by the names they call
themselves. The overwhelming majority of the indigenous peoples whom I have
met in both North and South America describe themselves as Indians. (For
more about nomenclature, see Appendix A, "Loaded Words.")

-----Original Message-----
From: aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org [mailto:aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Finley
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:29 PM
Cc: Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Indian ?

Justin Kerr wrote:

>In the preface, page XI, 4th paragraph, Charles Mann explains his use of
the
>word "Indian".
>
>_______________________________________________
>Aztlan mailing list
>Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
>http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
>
>  
>
I've followed this thread with interest, but haven't had a chance to see 
the book yet. I wonder if Justin or someone could  brief me  on Mann's 
explanation.  Is it just convenience  since  "Indian" is the term used 
in his sources?

Michael Finley


_______________________________________________
Aztlan mailing list
Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan