The Language of Indigenous Identity

Essay

Prior to writing this, my first Medium article, I asked myself which domain I should begin with. I decided I should start with something personal, and perhaps a little intimate. As an Indigenous advocate and educator, I have lectured on the Indigenous cultures of the Americas for a great many years, and have done so throughout the United States, across South America, in the UK and France, and as far as Australia. No matter the country or the audience — scholars, students, activists, or everyday people — the same question inevitably arose.

Sometimes it was wrapped politely as "How do we refer to you?" Rarely was it as blunt as "What are you?" More often it came as "How should we list you?" The question isn't about my name or title; it's about my collective identity. It's an honest question: bulletins need to be printed, handouts will be prepared, emails sent, and people informed. I thought, for my first article, I should talk about this and why it matters.

Photo by Joanna Kosinska on Unsplash

History

First, let's put the weight of the question in context. The recognition of Indigenous self-identification didn't happen all at once, it unfolded through international law, human rights debates, and relentless pressure from Indigenous movements themselves. It all started after WWII, with the creation of the United Nations (1945), which brought a surge of interest in human rights and decolonization. But, Indigenous peoples — especially in settler states like the U.S., Canada, and Australia — were largely ignored. They weren't seen as "nations" under international law, nor as colonized states seeking independence.

The International Labour Organization (ILO), a UN agency originally focused on workers' rights, became the first international body to take up Indigenous issues. Its 1957 Convention 107 was the first treaty addressing "indigenous and tribal populations." But it was steeped in paternalism, framing Indigenous peoples as "backward" groups in need of civilization through assimilation into national societies.

It wasn't until the revolutionary revision of 1989, ILO Convention 169, that decades of Indigenous advocacy succeeded in excising assimilationist thinking. Self-identification was enshrined as the fundamental criterion for who counts as Indigenous. Article 1(2) states: "Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply." For the first time, a binding treaty told the world, in no uncertain terms: Indigenous peoples have the right to say who they are.

For clarity, the timeline looks like this:

1945: Creation of the United Nations. Human rights and decolonization rise to prominence. Indigenous peoples in settler states like the U.S., Canada, and Australia are dismissed as neither colonized nor sovereign, and thus ignored.
1957: ILO Convention 107 is the first treaty on Indigenous peoples, but framed them as less-than and in need of civilization.
1971: The UN creates the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, finally giving Indigenous representatives a direct forum.
1982: The Working Group begins drafting a declaration on Indigenous rights. Indigenous activists push self-identification to the forefront.
1989: ILO Convention 169 replaces the 1957 convention after sustained advocacy, making self-identification the legal standard.
2007: The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is adopted by the General Assembly. Article 33(1) echoes ILO 169, affirming that Indigenous peoples have "the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions."

Let this sit with you for a moment: for sixty-two years after World War II, colonial governments still held the power to name Indigenous and tribal peoples. Only in the last two decades has the law returned that authority to Indigenous peoples themselves. This means I was already an adult before I had the legally recognized right to say who I was, and to tell others how they could refer to me, or how they could "list" me.

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

Semantics

Now we can get back to the guiding question: how should we refer to Indigenous and tribal peoples, and why does the choice of words matter? The answer, in short, is Indigenous or Indigenous peoples. This isn't only the most widely preferred and accepted identifier, carrying legal and political weight, but the answer Indigenous leaders chose for their people. To see why, let's consider what the word indigenous actually means.

The word "indigenous" refers broadly to the original inhabitants of a given region. It's a global term encompassing peoples such as the Indigenous nations of the Americas, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia, the Māori in Aotearoa/New Zealand, and many others across Africa, Asia, and the Arctic. It's meant to emphasize the shared experiences of colonization, cultural survival, and resilience. International law has no single strict definition, but common criteria include descent from populations inhabiting an area prior to conquest or colonization. For perspective, the United Nations estimates there are over 476 million Indigenous peoples living in more than 90 countries worldwide.

The phrase "Indigenous peoples" is always plural. That pluralization signals recognition of diversity: not one undifferentiated mass, but many distinct peoples with their own names and identities. In fact, using the plural (and often a capital "I") was internationally agreed upon to emphasize the plurality of these groups and their rights. The term is widely used in international contexts, and highlights issues like land rights, cultural preservation, and self-determination. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples stands as an example of this convention.

It was taught, until the mid-1980s, that "indigenous" and "aboriginal" could be used interchangeably, but this has fallen out of favor in both academic and activist circles. Indigenous comes from the Latin indigena ("sprung from the land"), while aboriginal derives from aborigines ("from the beginning"). The difference lies in usage: "aboriginal" was historically imposed as a generic label for "the first people" of many lands.

Colonial authorities and anthropologists applied it without consulting the peoples themselves, and over time it became a way of erasing cultural diversity, flattening everyone into "aboriginals" as though we were all the same. As a result, the appellation "aboriginal" still lingers in historical and dated anthropological writing: in Canada (where it is still legally enshrined), in Alaska and older U.S. ethnographies, and across places marked by colonization, such as Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

Photo by Viktor Forgacs on Unsplash

Regionality

In Australia, however, the designation is not flattening, but rather an act of self-identification. Many Aboriginal peoples have reclaimed the word and carry it with pride, dignity, political force, and cultural strength. In this context, "Aboriginal" (capitalized) asserts survival and sovereignty. Nationally, the most accurate phrasing is "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples," which recognizes two distinct Indigenous groups and their ongoing rights to land, language, and governance. With more than 250 Aboriginal Australian languages and many dialects, both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are internally diverse, with identities grounded in place and lineage. Self-identification is specific: people name their Nation, Clan, or Island community first (e.g., a Wiradjuri woman; a Tiwi man).

"Native American" is commonly used to refer to Indigenous peoples within United States borders. It encompasses many distinct nations, such as the Chumash, Navajo, Cherokee, and Lakota, and carries legal implications in the context of treaties, sovereignty, and federal recognition. In fact, the official U.S. term used in law and policy is "American Indian or Alaska Native" (AI/AN), reflecting the combined designation of these peoples in federal data and programs. Some individuals and organizations, as an act of reclamation, also continue to use "American Indian," especially in activist contexts (e.g., the American Indian Movement). As always, the most precise and respectful way to refer to someone is their specific tribal affiliation (e.g. "The author of this essay is Chumash.").

Alaska holds a unique position. Because it's part of the United States, U.S. terminology applies legally. In treaties, policy, and federal recognition, Alaska Native groups fall under the broader "Native American" or "American Indian/Alaska Native" (AI/AN) designation. But culturally and politically, Alaska Native peoples often distinguish themselves. The umbrella term "Alaska Natives" refers collectively to more than 200 tribes and nations, including Iñupiat, Yup'ik, Aleut, Tlingit, Haida, and many others. There are at least 11 distinct cultural-linguistic groupings and over 50 Alaska Native languages and dialects.

Some of these groups, like the Iñupiat and Yup'ik, are closely related to the Inuit across the Canadian border, but they generally identify by their own names rather than as "Inuit." There is also broad rejection of the outsider term "Eskimo." Alaska's Indigenous peoples honor their own distinct identities while still being part of the larger Native American framework in the U.S. context.

In Canada, the umbrella term is "Indigenous peoples," with three constitutionally recognized groups. "Indian, Inuit and Métis" are explicitly defined in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982:

First Nations: The numerous First Peoples of Canada who are not Inuit or Métis (historically referred to as "Indians" in older legislation).
Inuit: The Indigenous peoples of the Arctic regions (Nunavut, Nunavik, etc.), culturally and linguistically distinct and associated with circumpolar Inuit culture.
Métis: A distinct Indigenous people of mixed Indigenous and European ancestry, with their own culture, language (Michif), and governance systems.

"Indigenous" is the most widely accepted expression in Canada's public discourse, reflected in names like the Indigenous Peoples Atlas of Canada or the federal Minister of Indigenous Services. "Aboriginal" can be found in older documents and legal contexts, but as mentioned above, has fallen out of favor, and is no longer actively used.

In Latin America, Spanish terms like "pueblos indígenas" or simply indígena are commonly used for Indigenous peoples, though most prefer to be identified by their specific nation or people. For example, one might say someone is Quechua, Mapuche, or Lenca rather than just indígena. Because many Latin American countries have large Indigenous populations, questions of recognition and rights are woven into their constitutions and laws. Some of this progress has been directly influenced by ILO Convention 169 (see above).

It's important to note that the Indigenous peoples of the Caribbean are often grouped with those of Latin America, yet many in the region identify specifically as Taíno, an ethnonym from their own language. Activists and academics sometimes take this further by distinguishing between Taíno and Neo-Taíno, reflecting both continuity and contemporary resurgence.

In Africa, the language of Indigenous identity carries its own complexity. The continent is home to thousands of ethnic groups, many of whom resist being labeled "Indigenous" because they are majorities in their homelands. Still, certain peoples, such as the San and Khoekhoe of Southern Africa, the Amazigh of North Africa, the Batwa of Central Africa, and the Tuareg across the Sahara, have asserted the Indigenous designation in international forums. For them, "Indigenous" signals not only ancient presence but also contemporary struggles for unity, land, cultural survival, and political recognition in states that often marginalize them. As with other regions, self-identification is the guide: some groups embrace the term as a tool for advocacy, while others prefer only their own nation's name.

Across Asia, there isn't a single umbrella term equivalent to "Native American" or "First Nations." Each country or region has its own identifiers for Indigenous groups. For instance, Adivasi is used in India, Orang Asli/Orang Asal in Malaysia, Lumad and Igorot in the Philippines, Masyarakat Adat in Indonesia, Yuanzhumin in Taiwan, and Ainu in Japan. In Russia (including Siberia), dozens of Indigenous nationalities are recognized, each with their own names.

Despite this patchwork of local terms, in pan-Asian Indigenous movements and international forums the unifying label remains "Indigenous peoples." That phrase provides a common banner for advocacy on issues like land rights, cultural preservation, and self-determination, even when the on-the-ground terminologies differ by country.

Photo by Maksym Mazur on Unsplash

Guidance

The question of collective identity should never be skipped, because individual and group preferences must guide which term is used. Some people might identify as "Indigenous," others as "Native American," or more specifically by their tribal nation, and respecting that self-identification is essential. Inside the U.S. I will self-identify as Chumash in academic and Indigenous circles, but as Native American otherwise. Outside the U.S. I often use Indigenous.

In practice, even as an Indigenous person, I tend to mirror the language that the person I'm speaking with uses for themselves. If another Chumash person refers to themselves as Indigenous or American Indian, I'll honor their preference, even though I personally prefer Chumash for myself. It's a simple but meaningful act of respect to recognize another person's sovereignty over how they identify themselves.

It's important to recognize the difference between how a community might refer to itself and what is appropriate for an outsider to say. Some expressions — reclaimed slurs, certain nicknames, words passed between Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color — carry meaning, pride, and history within the group. These terms can signal camaraderie or cultural insight when used among community members. But outside the group, they do not carry the same weight; they often collapse into harm.

Even if an Indigenous friend "gives you a pass" to use an in-group label, as a non-Indigenous person, it's best to pause and ask: how would an in-group stranger feel if they heard you? That single word can create hostility not only toward the non-Indigenous speaker, but also toward the Indigenous person who "gave permission." Outsiders using such language can easily trigger generational trauma, reinforce stereotypes, or trivialize the cultural weight behind the terms. The most respectful approach for non-Indigenous people is to stick to "Indigenous" or a person's specific nation name in both formal and everyday usage, leaving those in-group expressions to the people whose culture and identity they truly belong to.

So, why did I choose this as my first article? Because words are never neutral; they carry intention, hold connotation, and shape the way people are seen and the way we see ourselves. Choosing "Indigenous peoples," or naming a nation directly, is not about pedantry but about recognition and dignity. For me, as a Chumash woman who has spent years teaching and advocating in many places, the question "How do we refer to you?" has always carried weight. It's not just an introduction. It's the first step toward a relationship built on authenticity and sustained through understanding, so strangers can become allies and allies can become community.

Photo by henry perks on Unsplash

In-Article Links

FAO of the United Nations: https://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/

ILO Convention 169: https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C169

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: https://social.desa.un.org/issues/indigenous-peoples/united-nations-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples

Canada's Constitution: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html

Australia Terminology: https://www.workingwithindigenousaustralians.info/content/Indigenous_Australians_3_Approrpiate_Terms.html

United States information (UCLA isn't just my alma mater, but maintains one of the best resource lists. The US government doesn't provide much helpful information directly): https://equity.ucla.edu/know/resources-on-native-american-and-indigenous-affairs/native-american-and-indigenous-peoples-faqs/