". . . primarily it seems that the term, "American Indian" is being rejected as European in origin, which is true, but all the above terms are European in origin, the only non-European way is to speak of LaCota, or more precisely of O'Glama, Brul'e, etc., of the MiuSuki, and all the rest of the several hundred correct tribal names. There is also some confusion about the word 'Indian', a mistaken belief that it refers to the country 'India.' When Columbus washed up on the beach i in the Caribbean, he was not looking for a country called 'India.' Europeans were calling that country 'Hindustan' in 1492, look it up on the old maps. Columbus called the Tribal People he met "Indio" from the Italian "in Dio", meaning "in God."
It takes a strong effort on the part of each American Indian not to become "Europeanised." The strength for this effort can only come from the traditional ways, the traditional values that our elders retained. It must come from the Hoop, the Four Directions, the Relations. It cannot come from the pages of a book, or a thousand books. No European can ever teach a LaCota to be a LaCota, a Hopi to be Hopi. A Master's Degree in "Indian Studies" or in "Education" or in anything else, cannot make a person into a human being, or provide knowledge into the traditional ways. It can only make you into a "mental european", an outsider.
I should be clear about something here, because there seems to be some confusion about it. when I speak of "europeans" or of "mental europeans", I'm not allowing for false distinctions. I'm not saying that, on the one hand, there are the byproducts of a few thousand years of genocidal, reactionary, european, intellectual development, which is bad, and on the other hand, there is some new revolutionary intellectual development which is good. I am referring here to the so-called theories of "Marxism", and "Anarchism" and "Leftism" in general. I don't believe these theories can be separated from the rest of the european intellectual tradition. It's really just the same old song.