The word Hindu in American English

Question

I, as an Indian, am often surprised when the Americans use the word Hindu, when they actually mean

The country of India
The Indian subcontinent
The Hindi language (possibly)

whereas it should only refer to the Hindu religion, or Hinduism.

For example, there is the Hindu-German conspiracy of 1915. While most of the Indian conspirators may have been Hindu, it does not appear to have been religiously motivated.

An American cousin of mine wanted a 'Hindu Barbie' in a sari. It sounded inaccurate, at least to my years. Occasionally, I have heard an Indian accent being referred to as a 'Hindu accent'. To my ear, this sounds as ridiculous as an accent being referred to as, say, a Catholic accent, a Baptist accent, or a Jewish accent.

The British do not usually do this, but I did see an old (1930s) film where the actor claimed that a nonsense word was 'Hindu' for welcome.

What is the reason for this usage? I did hear one possible explanation. A friend of mine visiting South America took exception to this usage. Upon enquiring, he was told that the word 'Hindu' refers to 'Indian Indians', while 'Indian' refers to native South Americans.

Was this the case in the USA as well?

How common is this usage? Is it universal, or only among the poorly educated? Why don't people say South Asian, or Indian, or the subcontinent, depending on the context?

To be fair to the Americans, the words and phrases Hindu, Hinduism, India, Indus, Sindh, Sindhu, Hindi, Hindostan, Hindu Kush, etc all have the same origin.

However, non-Hindu South Asians, including Indians, and even some secular Hindus may be offended by such usage.

I've rarely if ever heard the term used in the first two contexts. Using "Hindu" refer to the Hindi language is perfectly idiomatic AE, however. (And with regard to the first two do keep in mind that saying "Indian" is ambiguous.) — Hot Licks, Apr 21 '18 at 21:03
Anecdotally, in my experience in IT (where I've worked with many people from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh), generally people from South Asia are referred to as 'Indian' (unless their specific nationality is known) and Hindu is used to refer to the religion (if relevant, and often inaccurately), or the language. — danch, Apr 21 '18 at 21:07
@Danch That is not too bad, as 'Indian' could be considered to be a contraction of 'from the Indian subcontinent', though India's neighbours especially Pakistanis) may not be too pleased with it. The more politically correct term would be South Asian.
Also, before 1947, Pakistan and Bangladesh did not exist, so calling citizens of those countries Indians would merely be anachronistic, rather then competely inaccurate. — ranban282, Apr 21 '18 at 21:17
@Hot Licks Thanks, though the usage is not accurate. There are Hindi speakers who are not Hindu, and there are plenty of Hindus who don't speak Hindi. Could you help with 'Hindu accent' and the 'Hindu Barbie' bit? Does a 'Hindu accent' specifically refer to the accent of Hindi speakers, and excludes Indian non-Hindi speakers like speakers of, say the Telugu or the Bengali Language? What about a Hindu Barbie? Saris are worn in all parts of India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, but is less common in Pakistan. Shouldn't it have been Indian or South Asian rather than Hindu? — ranban282, Apr 21 '18 at 21:18
It is now more common (in the UK) to refer to 'Native Americans' and thus leave 'Indian' to mean someone from India. I think there is common understanding in the UK of Hindu being religion and Hindi being language. Only ignorant people will refer to Indians and Pakistanis indiscriminately as 'Asian', in my own experience. — Nigel J, Apr 21 '18 at 21:25
I think it is fair to refer to persons from different countries from South Asia as Asian or South Asian - after all, the racial characteristics and culture are similar, while language and religion may possibly, but not necessarily, be different.
When talking about nationality or religion, precision is helpful. — ranban282, Apr 21 '18 at 21:38
@ranban282 The 'Hindu accent' thing I wouldn't be surprised to hear either, though I'd personally cringe. It would probably be used to describe the accent of any south Asian, regardless of mother tongue. Why it can't simply be an 'accent', in the rare case that it's relevant at all, I'm not sure. The Barbie doll is officially 'India Barbie'. There is a separate Diwali Barbie, as well. — danch, Apr 21 '18 at 21:49
@Danch Yep, the Hindu bit makes me cringe, as two Indians could have identical accents, and have different religions.
I think that saying 'Indian Accent' is fair, not offensive, and somewhat accurate. While there is considerable variation across the sub continent, and within India, and variation across education levels, and the medium of instruction of the school the person attended, I think there are sufficient similarities in accents across the sub continent (due to the shared history and language), for an accent to be called a generic 'Indian' accent. — ranban282, Apr 21 '18 at 21:55
@Danch Talking of accents, an Indian/South Asian version of Professor Higgins could probably pinpoint one's location to within 100 kilometres or so by the way one speaks English - There are significant variations even among Hindi speakers. — ranban282, Apr 21 '18 at 21:58
Just to make sure it's clear: In North America the term "Indian", without any qualifier, was pretty much universally used to refer to "Native Americans" and their related languages, customs, and territories from 1492 until 1950, at which time the transition to "American Indian" and then "Native American" slowly began. That transition is far from complete, and if you say "Indian" in the US, without some contextual clues, your listener is almost certain to be unsure which culture you are referencing. — Hot Licks, Apr 21 '18 at 23:06
@HotLicks You're right. What's missing is how hard it must be for someone living in India to understand how far away that person or their countrymen or their very country all must be from the experience and thought of someone living in Reno or Yuma, where Indian means something completely different, and why. I've tried to explain that below. — tchrist, Apr 23 '18 at 02:32
@tchrist In our country, we sometimes refer to Native Americans as Red Indians. And we are familiar with Cowboys and Indians, thanks to the endless supply of Westerns. I repeat - it is the use of the word Hindu which seems strange, when it is used to refer to one's ethnicity or culture or nationality, while in reality it is just a religion, and nothing else. — ranban282, Apr 23 '18 at 07:24
I have never heard that Hindu and Hindi in AmE are the same. Hindu is the religion and Hindi is the language and if they are being used interchangeably by "Americans", I have never heard that. Of course, AmE are notoriously ignorant of geography etc. [I am American, therefore, I can insult my fellow "countrypeople" as I see it.:)]. I disagree with the first comment here 100%. The people I know and speak to would not make that mistake. But those that would make that mistake, would make a number of other similar mistakes as well. — Lambie, Apr 24 '18 at 13:44

score 8 · Answer 1 · edited Jun 15 '20 at 07:40

8

In a comment, HotLicks wrote:

Just to make sure it's clear: In North America the term "Indian", without any qualifier, was pretty much universally used to refer to "Native Americans" and their related languages, customs, and territories from 1492 until 1950, at which time the transition to "American Indian" and then "Native American" slowly began. That transition is far from complete, and if you say "Indian" in the US, without some contextual clues, your listener is almost certain to be unsure which culture you are referencing.

Let me add that for people who have Native Americans living among them, or who have a reservation close by, the word Indian, absent other indicators, will naturally be taken to mean the people whom they’re close to in their common experience of everyday life.

The British “do not do this” for several reasons. First, they have a long association with India; America does not. Second, America has a long association with “Cowboys and Indians”; Britain does not.

Here from Politico is the normal context of the word Indian in these American lands:

“It’s very troublesome,” said Caitrin McCarron Shuy of the National Indian Health Board, noting that Native Americans suffer from the nation’s highest drug overdose death rates, among other health concerns. “There’s high unemployment in Indian country, and it's going to create a barrier to accessing necessary Medicaid services.”

Native Americans’ unemployment rate of 12 percent in 2016 was nearly three times the U.S. average, partly because jobs are scarce on reservations. Low federal spending on the Indian Health Service has also left tribes dependent on Medicaid to fill coverage gaps.

“Without supplemental Medicaid resources, the Indian health system will not survive,” W. Ron Allen — a tribal leader who chairs CMS’ Tribal Technical Advisory Group — warned Verma in a Feb. 14 letter.

As you see, Indian already means something here. You wouldn’t want people to get confused.

I know you will find this hard to believe or perhaps sympathize with, and that it will unfairly make you think less of us, but most Americans know very little about Asia let alone India, except that it is a huge and inconceivably distant place.

They have no contact with it and so have no need for nuanced terms. They often cannot tell you what “South Asian” even means in the sense that you are using it, and plenty still say “Oriental” for what you might use East Asian or Southeast Asian for. Remember they also are unlikely to know the difference between Sikh and Muslim and Hindu.

India simply isn’t a place that we have historically had much reason to think about. If you asked someone from Yuma or Reno whether they thought Calcutta or Ceylon were closer to eight or ten thousand miles away, number one they would have no idea, and number two, they wouldn’t blanch at those names the way you just have. :)

When there’s already a particular word for something, it’s only natural to pick a different word for something that’s completely different. I’m not saying this is “right”; it’s just what happens. I would never suggest that someone use “a Hindu” to mean a person from any of the countries of the Indian Subcontinent, nor would I do so myself. The question only asked for why people might do so, or might have done so in the past, so that’s what I’ve tried to explain.

Thanks for this, but is that why people use 'Hindu' when they mean Indian or South Asian? Why can't they use the term South Asian, when they talk about things like dress, language or customs? – ranban282 Apr 22 '18 at 20:05
@ranban282 Why do you think they would know what “South Asian” the way you are using it means to you? They wouldn’t. I've updated my answer to try to explain. – tchrist Apr 23 '18 at 02:25
@ranban282 - "Southeast Asia" is Vietnam, Cambodia, et al. This is as much as most in the US know of "South Asia". India, in particular, has always been regarded as an oddity -- it's own "subcontinent" vs a part of Asia. – Hot Licks Apr 23 '18 at 02:34
@HotLicks I’ve heard certain middle Americans remark how “people from India don’t even look* Oriental, doncha know”*, which doubtless contributes to not thinking of them as wholly “Asian”. (Yes, all these words are confusing and overloaded.) – tchrist Apr 23 '18 at 02:36
3

@tchrist - I'd have to say that I don't typically regard people from India as being "Asian". To the Midwest American eye they appear to be more closely related to Eastern Mediterranean folks. – Hot Licks Apr 23 '18 at 02:39
@HotLicks “People from India” is probably a better term if you want to be understood here. But I doubt we’ll ever convince the original poster to refer to himself as a “person from India” instead of as “an Indian” to avoid confusing us cowboys. :) – tchrist Apr 23 '18 at 02:41
@Tchrist Thanks for the elaborate answer, this is in line with my friend's visit to South America. It is not accurate, but makes sense, given the historical context. – ranban282 Apr 23 '18 at 06:49
I always thought that South Asia referred to seven or eight countries (Afghanistan is the source of confusion), and that the definition was pretty standard. There's an element of physical geography too - they are countries in the Indian Plate that rammed into the Eurasian landmass. Here's the wiki article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia. South East Asia is pretty standard too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia. An alternate definition could simply be that South Asia consists of SAARC members, and South East Asia consists of ASEAN members. – ranban282 Apr 23 '18 at 06:58
@tchrist You have convinced me :) I'm happy to refer to myself as a 'person from India', especially in the New World. It is being called a Hindu that I find weird, which is my religion, but about 20% of my countrymen don't share that faith. How would it be if North Americans were simply referred to as Christians rather than North Americans, or by their respective nationalities. Where I've grown up, Indian could refer to one's nationality, ethnicity or race, or culture, while Hindu refers to the religion, and religion alone. – ranban282 Apr 23 '18 at 07:05
3

@ranban282 - Consider the on-going awkwardness of citizens of the USA being referred to as "Americans". It works OK in England, but not so much in Brazil. And "Norte Americano" may convey the right meaning in Argentina, but not so much in Mexico or Canada. (And then there's the whole issue of what to call the crazy people on those tiny islands just west of Germany.) – Hot Licks Apr 23 '18 at 11:56
Re using the term Americans. Yeah, some people have been complaining about that on the basis of political correctness for years. Aren't Brazilians happy that their country Brazil has a proper adjective then? They should be. No one in Latin American would ever need to be worried about the term americano, because they would ever only need norte americano or sul-americano/sudamericano, ergo the americano thing on its own is not relevant to them. (And as a footnote, I'm also Brazilian as it happens (by birth and it is where I was raised, so I know this issue very well.) – Lambie Apr 24 '18 at 13:54
2

Crazily enough, we can't use the terms "East Indian" and "West Indian" to distinguish between "people of the subcontinent of India" and "aboriginal peoples of North America" because the "East Indies" refers in large part to the former Dutch colonial area of Indonesia, and "West Indies" to the Caribbean islands. – Sven Yargs Jul 11 '18 at 06:05

Conrado · Answer 2 · 2023-01-10T11:25:11.753

A brief etymological note:

You already mentioned the common origin of several words. I don't know about inside of India, but outside, the word has referred to a geographical region for a long time.

Etymonline has it that hindu in English dates from around the

1660s, from Persian Hindu (adjective and noun) "Indian," from Hind "India," from Sanskrit sindhu "river," meaning here the Indus; hence "region of the Indus," the sense then gradually was extended by invading peoples to encompass all northern India. "Properly, one of the native race in India descended from the Aryan conquerors. ... More loosely, the name includes also the non-Aryan inhabitants of India" [Century Dictionary, 1902]. As an adjective from 1690s. The Hindu Kush mountain range is said to mean literally "Indian killer," and was said to have been the name given by the Persians to a pass where their Indian slaves had perished in winter, but this likely is folk etymology.

And a (tangential) note of personal experience:

The phenomenon is not only found in American English: I've worked in a South Chilean hardware store (where we speak American Spanish) for the last five years, and have paid close attention to the origins of the ironmongery there. In Chile, importers have found that India has good stuff cheap, possibly due to the relaxed worker protection laws there. I have found that some of the best quality/price ratios in the "quincallería" (hinges and latches) sections of hardware import/distributors here have many Indian products, as well as leather products (gloves, work aprons and welder protection clothing). In the catalogues, these are almost invariably referred to as being "indú" in origin.

As a native North American, when I first heard this usage, I was also confused, having had the impression that "Hindu" referred to a religion, as other commenters on OP have also said; and I could not understand why South Americans should want religious work-clothing, nor why the religious Hindus themselves should be making leather objects in the first place. However, from what I have been able to ascertain (by a sort of linguistic osmosis mostly), the word "Hindú" in these catalogues (and in casual speech) refers exclusively to a geographical region, leading me to believe that the Persians lent their usage to Western Europe and from there to the Americas.

Conclusion

You said:

...whereas it should only refer to the Hindu religion, or Hinduism.

I generally make an effort to be sensitive to offenses that others may take at the words I use, especially with regards to national origins. But in my town there are no Indians, and I don't even know any in the next town, although there may be some. And the usage of "Hindu" here is not meant to be offensive at all; it is simply the name given to anything that comes from India in general. I guess that the Persians (and other invading peoples) did not particularly care whether they were offensive or not, and the rest of the world simply followed suit.

So "should only refer to..." seems a bit strong; unless the usage actually is offensive, I will probably keep using it in America, because of its established (by use) meaning. And I hope that someone who could take offense would also write an answer here, explaining their side.

score 3 · Answer 3 · answered Jan 10 '23 at 20:13

This phenomenon is neither recent nor strictly "American." The "Americans" got it from the British, back when a more common Anglicized spelling was "Hindoo."

For example:

The 1792 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (vol. 82) contains an article by Henry Cavendish, Esq., titled "On the Civil Year of the Hindoos, and its Divisions ; with an Account of three Hindoo Almanacs belonging to Charles Wilkins, Esq."
Printed in London in 1794 is Specimens Of Hindoo Literature: Consisting of Translations, from the Tamoul Language, of Some Hindoo Works of Morality and Imagination, with Explanatory Notes: To Which Are Prefixed Introductory Remarks on the Mythology, Literature, etc. of the Hindoos. by N. E. Kindersley, Esq. of the Honourable East India Company's Civil Service on Their Madras Establishment.
Printed in London in 1796 is Eliza Hamilton's Translations of the Letters of a Hindoo Rajah...
London, 1817: Colonel Mark Wilks' Historical Sketches of the South of India, in an Attempt to Trace the History of Mysoor; from the Origin of the Hindoo Government of That State, to the Extinction of the Mahommedan Dynasty in 1799.

This spelling was used up to the mid-20th century:

London, 1932: J. R. Ackerley's Hindoo Holiday: An Indian Journal

It also appeared in the US:

Philadelphia, 1868: M. Frere's Old Deccan Days, or Hindoo Fairy Legends

In all of these cases, the word is used to indicate something related to or originating from India, regardless of language or religion.

The word Hindu in American English

3 Answers3

Related

A brief etymological note:

And a (tangential) note of personal experience:

Conclusion