Indigenous: To Capitalize or Not

Indigenous: To Capitalize or Not
Adding a New "Flavor" to the Ethnic Issue

Indigenous: To Capitalize or Not

I would be grateful for advice on the accepted practice regarding capitalization of the word indigenous? Does it depend on the context?

Samuel Vasikaran
Editor, The Clinical Biochemist Reviews, Australia

___________________________

My 2 cents: if indigenous is being used in a generic sense (eg: ".... of Indigenous peoples when compared to immigrant populations...") then no capitalisation. If it being used as a shorthand or collective descriptor for a particular cultural group ("kidney disease in Indigenous Austalians is ...") then capitalisation as a mark of respect is appropriate. Indigenous people of different tribes or groupings often prefer to have that respect conferred via capitalisation. The same applies to "aboriginal" vs "Aboriginal". If anyone disagrees, then I invite them to consider not capitalising "greek" or "briton" or "japanese".

Simon Chapman
Tobacco Control
___________________________

Same idea for Indigenous Peoples of the Americas, also, though typically this can be American Indians or Native Americans. I see a lot of articles doing "native Americans" when referring to Native Americans, which I consider to be both wrong and confusing. I agree wholeheartedly that the capitalization is considered to be a small form of respect—too often forgotten when referring to or dealing with Native peoples.

Alice Landwehr
Managing Editor, the Journal of Pediatrics
___________________________

It's interesting that the capital has become a symbol of respect. In the US, we invariably capitalize African American and Hispanic, but white is frequently used without a capital (Other may or may not get one, and there are those that feel that the term itself, whatever its starting letter, is offensive). Further, how should one deal with a term that has come into favor in recent years: non-Hipanic white. I'm not sure that "indigenous peoples of the Americas" give offense, and it looks reasonable to the eye, but it's certainly debatable. On the fourth hand, I've been told by some American Indians that Native American is not the preferred term, or even a welcome one. Do you capitalize People of Color?

And so on. Could we prehaps agree that the language is in flux, and style manuals have to play catch up. I try to find out what people (including myself) want to be called and use that term, stressing ethnicity over "race."

Rich Rothenberg

___________________________

Exactly. Finding out what people want to be called and how that is to be spelled and/or capitalized is the key. I can't speak to what other groups want and how. You are right that Native American is not always the preferred term among many American Indians. While the terms are used interchangably, the general feeling is that "Native American" is used by academics and "American Indian" and "Indian" used by the people themselves. But that is not consistent either.

I know some who think that the term "Native American" can be applied to any one born in the U.S. (but according to the U.S. Constitution, any one born in the U.S. is a "naturalized U.S. citizen," not "native American."*) I know some who say, "I was born an Indian and I'll die an Indian" and among many organizations "American Indian" is the preferred term when referring to Native Americans as a whole. I know of some who prefer "Indigenous." Don't forget "First Nations." Of course, the real preference is to use the name of the Native Nation, such as Cheyenne, Araphaho, Lenape, Cherokee, and so forth. And then you get into which name to use: Navajo vs Diné, Delaware vs Lenape, and so forth (name given them by others vs name for themselves).

* "native American" in my view can refer to anyone born in the U.S.; that is why I find it confusing and wrong to not capitalize "Native" when referring to Indigenous peoples using that particular term. If an article is going to use "Native American," capitalize it. If an article is going to use "American Indian," capitalize it. If an article is going to use "Indigenous" in the same way, capitalize it. Additionally, if an article is going to talk about the cultures of the over 500 Native Nations recognized in the United States, make it plural! There is no one Native American "culture."

Also, for what it's worth, I know a local American Indian organization that uses "Native American Indian" and hedges all bets. :-)

National Congress of American Indians http://www.ncai.org/
The Native American Rights Fund http://www.narf.org/
Native American Journalists Association http://www.naja.com/
First Nations Development Institute http://www.firstnations.org/

Local organizations:
Native American Indian Center of Central Ohio
http://naicco.tripod.com/
Ohio Center for Native American Affairs
http://www.geocities.com/ocnaa/
Miami Valley Council for Native Americans http://www.tmvcna.org/
Indigenous Cultural Advocacy in Resources and Education
http://www.icare-care.org

Alice Landwehr
Managing Editor, The Journal of Pediatrics

___________________________

(In response to Richard Rothenberg)
As a black person, I prefer black to Black. I generally dislike the use of 'Blacks" or 'blacks', and 'Whites' or 'whites', and prefer 'black people' and 'white people' instead. No one refers to oriental people as the 'yellows' or 'Yellows'! Capitalising 'people of colour' borders on the ridiculous. This is a descriptive term, not a proper name. By the same token, I would be offended if someone referred to me as a 'zulu'.

Strange how capitalisation can affect one's emotions!

Dan J. Ncayiyana
Vice Chancellor, Durban Institute of Technology, South Africa

___________________________

I agree with Dr. Ncayiyana and have wrangled with this issue in a paper that I edited. Is "white people" and "black people" really an appropriate description of race? I feel the colour issue should not be included whatsoever, and race should be "caucasian", etc. Is "African" the most appropriate race for "black people", or is it negroid ? What about African American?—this is not a race, but rather a designation based on citizenship or place of birth. Among black people, are there not different races as well? There is no clear cut way of describing "race" and similar problems exist with other race designations. i.e. Hispanic, Latino, South-American, Chicano etc., Oriental, Asian, Pacific Islander, etc. Is it not time that an editorial solution was proposed?

John L. Moore

___________________________

The whole race/ethnicity issue in medical publication is complicated by several factors. First, we in the U.S. tend to use U.S.-centric terms such as African-American, despite the fact that many such persons prefer the term "black" or simply "African." More global terms are clearly needed. Second, the only real "standard" we have for these terms in the U.S. is the list of options provided by the census bureau.

The four racial terms of the 1970's (American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and White) have now become six (American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; White; and Some Other Race, intended by the bureau to capture such categories as Mulatto, Creole, and Mestizo). The only ethnic terms now used are Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino. More info on this is found at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html. We struggled with these issues at our journal in assembling a special issue on disparities in emergency medical care—disparities that are frequently related to racial/ethnic issues. There is clearly no "correct" set of terms, and we have already noted, in corresponding with the authors of the papers in this issue, disagreement regarding which terms should be used.

David C. Cone
Senior Associate Editor, Academic Emergency Medicine

___________________________

This is a difficult issue. I am German, English and Indian. So I am a mutt. But, a very good friend and co-author of mine is from Jamaica. He is "black", but don't call him African American. He is if anything, Jamaican-American. So that makes me either German American, English American or Indian American or just a white boy from America. We have lost something in the translation. Most of my students or colleagues do not care for African American. Most have never been to Africa. Most are not Black, but a nice color of brown. We have politically corrected ourselves to death. I believe the Census Department has made most changes and have attempted to group people. Until we stop grouping, we will continue to have these issues. But, in terms of research, we have other issues. For instance, Sickle Cell was once an "African American" issue. Not so anymore. In a hospital I currently do research for, we see many "White" children by appearance and Hispanic children with the disease. In emergency medicine, we can no longer make our initial diagnosis based on racial or ethnic probability. So in editorial work, we have to be cautious of these generalizations used in the methodology of studies. Do I have the answer, no. But this forum is certainly a good start.

Adding a New "Flavor" to the Ethnic Issue

To add another ingredient to the last issue:
As I understand America is a continent and not a country. So why the people born in the United States of America are the only ones that can be called "Americans".

What about the Canadians and the rest of Latinamericans and the ones from the Caribbean islands? Are the blacks from Latinoamerica or the Caribbean AfroAmericans?

Elena Ryder
University of Zulia, Venezuela

___________________________

You highlight other points of increasing confusion. It is not uncommon to use the term North American to apply to those from the U.S. and Canada, but this term usually does not include Mexicans, and it should, geographically. (By the way, the term African Canadian is now commonly used in Canada.) The situation in the Spanish and Portuguese speaking parts of the Western Hemisphere are far more complex, as Dr Ryder knows far better than I, with a heterogenous mixture of persons of European, African, Caribbean, and Indigenous Indian origin (there are many terms in the languages for so-called "mixtures," itself a term of dubious value).

I'd like to suggest that the Tower of Babel that has been revealed with just a few comments to this list is a legitimate concern of WAME—not for the purpose of codification, but to consider an issue of substance and perhaps produce some thoughts on the matter. It brings up concerns on many fronts: autonomy (being called what you want to be called); political correctness (sacrificing meaning to form); race (a cultural, not a genetic, construct); ethnicity, nationality, and risk (just what is in a name that tells you something important). Would there be interest in pursuing this?

Rich Rothenberg

___________________________

Mixing up race and ethnic group is a common problem in the world of dermatology.

In the meantime, you might like to look at the ten measures of journal quality I suggested five years ago in a paper Richard Horton asked me to write, as part of a supplement to celebrate the 175th Anniversary of the Lancet. (Rennie D. The present state of medical journals. Lancet. 1998;352:SII 18-22.) Though the tone of this article is light, it had a very serious purpose.

I wrote something on this recently. Please see:
Williams HC. Have you ever seen an Asian/Pacific Islander? Arch Dermatol. 2002;138:673-674 if interested.

Subsequent correspondence is also interesting.
Race vs Ethnicity in Dermatology.
Eric L. Carter
Arch Dermatol. 2003;139:539-540.

Race vs Ethnicity in Dermatology-Reply.
Hywel C. Williams
Arch Dermatol. 2003;139:540.

I am sure it's common to a lot of medical research areas.

Hywel C. Williams, MSc, PhD, FRCP
Professor of Dermato-Epidemiology
Co-ordinating Editor of the Cochrane Skin Group
Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology, Nottingham

___________________________

What ABOUT the Canadians who are not americans, eh???

Barry Pless
McGill, Canada

___________________________