
Guns, empires and Indians: Imperial politics triggered an indigenous arms race - benbreen
https://aeon.co/essays/how-did-the-introduction-of-guns-change-native-america
======
forthefuture
>...gave European colonists significant military advantages over Native
American people wielding bows and arrows, clubs, hatchets and spears. The
attractiveness of such goods also meant that Indians desired trade with
Europeans, despite the danger the newcomers represented.

Every time they use "Indians" after this I have to assume they mean Native
Americans, though no where is that indicated or made understandable.

Is there any expectation that at some point in the future we will never again
refer to the original habitants of North America as "Indians"? Everyone
understands the term "American Indian" to mean indigenous person, but using
just "Indian" and expecting people to know by context that you mean literally
not an Indian person doesn't seem like a future facing literary move.

~~~
ralfd
As the article talks about Mohawks, Iroquois, Cherokee etc and European
colonies at "the East Coast of North America" the meaning is quite clear.

~~~
Wildgoose
But not from the title - I assumed it was talking about India, not North
America.

