Previously by David Yeagley:
An American Indian View of Immigration
According to the
Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian,
Christopher Columbus was an Indian.
global racist definition of the Museum is that all
“indigenous” peoples of the Americas, including
Pacific Islanders, are properly called “American
Columbus thought he was simply on the different side
of the same one-continent world, clearly he was as
indigenous as any other human being—at least in his
After all, he didn`t know where he was, and he had no
way of knowing the shores he landed on weren`t connected
to the Euro-Afro-Asian continent.
The cartography of his day simply did not portray the
Americas. The world maps of
Vesconte (ca. 1321),
Catalan-Este (ca.1450), and
Leardo (1452), clearly show the world as one huge
land mass with variously contorted configurations and
some islands. Columbus simply did not know of the
continents later called the Americas.
Kirkpatrick Sale`s account of Columbus,
The Conquest of Paradise (1991), makes no
mention of any of these maps, but only of
Martin Behaim`s “globe,”
the ball over which Benhaim pasted a parchment map of
the world. And that was in 1492. (Benhaim, from Nürnburg,
Germany, had been in Lisbon, Portugal, in the 1480`s.)
Portugal had sent at least eleven missions in to the
Atlantic Ocean between 1431 and 1486; all in search of
more fabled islands. Everyone knew that sailing west did
not mean falling off the edge of the earth. (By the year
Leif Ericsson had already built huts on the coast of
North America, though thinking it just another island,
It seems to me—as a
Comanche Indian—that today`s politically-correct
racialists are therefore obligated to consider Columbus
an American Indian.
more difficult identity problem today concerns the Asian
Indians, the people of the Indus River.
In English, they were first called
Hindu, after the Persian pronunciation
(adaptation) of the Sanskrit, sindhu, meaning,
“river.” (The Indus River takes its name from the
However, the first written use of the word “Indian” in
English is in 1566, in John Alday`s translation of
in which he refers to “an Indian philosopher named
Diphileus”—a Greek name, no less.
In Spanish, a Latin-based language, the Hindu people
were referred to as Indios probably as early as
the Tartar Relation, Father John`s account of
Plano Carpini`s 13th century mission to the
Mongols. In Latin, Fr. John uses the word “Indos,”
(plural of Indian).
In any event, Columbus referred to the
people he met on
San Salvador as “Indians.” Ever after in the
history of the European development of the Americas, the
indigenous peoples were called Indians. Spanish law
always referred to them as Indians, as did English law.
The first treaty of the United States federal government
with an indigenous group was with the
Delaware Indians in 1778. (Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania)
“American Indian” is the legal term for the indigenous peoples with whom the United
States government had to relate. This is historical and
However, the presence of
Hindus (Asian Indians) in
America is causing great confusion today. With two
million, their population is roughly the same as the
American Indian. They call themselves “Indian” and
American Indians must not concede. The Hindus cannot have our legal, historical name
here in America.
Columbus` maps clarified the world. The least we can do
is preserve our clear language—if only in American
Dr. David A. Yeagley [email
is an enrolled member of the
and on his own Web site
and he is a regular speaker for
Young America`s Foundation.
David Yeagley`s columns for VDARE.COM include
An American Indian View of Immigration, and
To Deport or not to Deport.
David Yeagley is the author of Bad Eagle: The Rantings of a Conservative Comanche.