[aaco]

In Brazil, the word we commonly use to refer to the native inhabitants is "índio". When we refer to someone who is born in India, the word is "indiano".

Both words translate to "Indian" in English. Maybe that is why the article calls him an Indian. What word would you use instead, "native", maybe?

[whatwhatwhat]

There is no real authority on whom should call whom by what name except for the one that has to wear said name. The term Indian for a native to the amaerican continents has carried a lot of derogatory meaning. Notwithstanding it is just plain inaccurate.

So I do think we (all of us) can do better than following a 500 year old misconception, if nothing else

[philwelch]

"There is no real authority on whom should call whom by what name except for the one that has to wear said name"

And as I keep telling you, many of the people we call "American Indians" actually prefer to be called "American Indians".

[whatwhatwhat]

And many prefer Native American, but so what?

Thats not at all what I was pointing out. This story actually takes place in Brazil. He should be referred to by the name his people would use for themselves, for God's sake people, have some respect.

And if it is the case that you do not know a person's heritage use a term that is reflective of that (your lack of knowledge) instead of using some archaic misconception just because it has become the status quo.

THIS MAN does not live like any person today. He is not even an "American Indian". Your "American Indians" all speak english, or another modern language, and they are integrated with society (hence they could be interviewed in the first place) and they are not this man and they do not speak for this man or his people.

Hell, it's 2010 and with a story like this we actually had the chance to get the "discovery of a new peoples" thing down right this time with respect. The gov't of Brazil realizes this and the steps they have taken to insure this mans safety back that up. This story completely blows the humanitarian aspect though, rather than preserving it.

Why? Because he is way more native than any of the "American Indians" that you are referring to but you just completely don't get it. He is unique. He is an authentic native to his territory. He should be called by his tribal name, failing that he is a native or indigenous person and that is all that we really know.

[aaco]

"He should be called by his tribal name ..."

And what is his tribal name? Remember that he is the last survivor of an uncontacted tribe. We would need to contact him in order to know that, right?

[WildUtah]

THIS MAN does not live like any person today.

There is at least one person today he lives exactly like.

He is not even an "American Indian". Your "American Indians" all speak english[sic], or another modern language,

I guess all the Quiché speakers I met in Guatemala and the Tzeltal speakers in México who didn't speak Spanish just don't count for you. There are millions of people in the Americas who don't speak any of the Indo-European languages that dominate modern politics and commerce in the hemisphere.

they are integrated with society (hence they could be interviewed in the first place)

So Lacandons and Raramuri who don't speak Spanish and still live traditional lifestyles without European culture contact far in the backwoods don't exist? They're well documented.

they are not this man and they do not speak for this man or his people.

On that I agree.

[philwelch]

As far as he cares we can probably just call him Brazilian Bob. He's living out the rest of his days in complete solitary isolation from the rest of the world--I don't think he even cares exactly which term for "indigenous person of the Americas" Slate uses to describe him.