Anne wrote:
> Historically, Columbus was not looking for India and mistakenly called
> Native people Indians. India did not exist then. It was called
> Hindustan. What old Chris said was "in dios" (sp?) which meant in god
> or something similar.
I really think this tale is a classic 'like begets like inference.' For
example, the Spanish form would have been "En Dios," not "In dios."
(there is on 'in' in Spanish). Since "Dios" means 'God" in Spanish, it
is not a plural form, so there would be no singular form, i.e. 'Dio' as
in 'Indio'. "En Dios" ( "of God" or "about God") is pronounced 'in
deeoz' while "indio" is pronounced 'een dee o.' If the Spaniards wanted
to descripe the Arawaks as 'godly' they would have used "piadoso," if
divine, the would have used 'divino,' or if the wanted to describe them
as blessed they would have used "bendito" or "feliz." But there's really
no idiomas in Spanish where 'en Dios' is used, at least that I know of.
It doesn't really mean anything. It merely sounds like "Idios" if you
mispronounce it.
Additionally, regardless of how the people who lived in the Indian
Subcontenent in 1492 described themselves (there were actually many
nations each with different names, beside "Hindustan") the fact remains
that Europeans since at least the time of Alexander called that place
"India." Greek and Roman texts always refer to it as "India" and it
comes from an early geographers (I can't recall if it was Herodotus or
another) defined this land as 'from the Indus river to China (Cathy, or
whatever they called China then). See Herodotus, Pliny, Ptolemy etc.
But Columbus' own writing make all this clear. Just take the very first
letter to Ferdinand and Isabella, published in Europe in Latin in 1494:
http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/columbus/toc.html
"Q voniam suscepte prouinciæ rem perfectâ
me consecutû fuisse: gratum tibi fore scio.
has constitui exarare: quæ te vniuscuiusque
rei in hoc nostro itinere geste inuêteque admoneât.
Tricesimotercio die postquam Gadibus discessi: in +mare Indicû +
perueni: vbi plurimas Iu[n]sulas innumeris
habitatas hominibus reperi: quarû omnium pro foe-
licissimo Rege nostro: præconio celebrato, et vexillis
extensis: côtradicente nemine possessionê accepi.
primeque earum: diui Saluatoris nomê imposui.
cuius fretus auxilio: tam ad hanc quam ad ceteras alias
peruenimus. Eam vero +Indi+ Guanahanyn vocant.
Aliarum etiam vnâquanque nouo nomine nûcupaui.
Quippe aliam Insulam Sancte Marie Conceptionis.
aliam Fernandinam. aliam Hysabellam. aliâ "
(I've added the '+' to mark the reverence to "Indian")
(translation)
"Because my undertakings have attained success, I know that it will be
pleasing to you: these I have determined to relate, so that you may be
made
acquainted with everything done and discovered in this our voyage. On the
thirty-third day after I departed from Cadiz, I came to the +Indian sea+,
where +(mare Indicu)+
I found many islands inhabited by men without number, of all which I took
possession for our most fortunate king, with proclaiming heralds and
flying
standards, no one objecting. To the first of these I gave the name of the
blessed Saviour, on whose aid relying I had reached this as well as the
other islands. But the +Indians+ call it Guanahany. I also called each
one of +(Indi)+
the others by a new name. For I ordered one island to be called Santa
Maria
of the Conception, another Fernandina, another Isabella, another Juana,
and so on with the rest."
The next paragraph makes it clear that C thought he was in Asia.
"As soon as we had arrived at that island which I have just now said was
called Juana, I proceeded along its coast towards the west for some
distance; I found it so large and without perceptible end, that I
believed it to
be not an island, but the continental country of Cathay; seeing, however,
no
towns or cities situated on the sea-coast, but only some villages and
rude
farms, with whose inhabitants I was unable to converse, because as soon
as they saw us they took flight."
Cathay, as you know, is what Europeans called China in those days. So it
doesn't make much sense to argue that Colon didn't think he was in Asia,
if he mistook Cuba for China, does it?
The 16th century Diccionario de Autoridades (1726 -1739) gives this
definition for "Indio"
"INDIO, DIA.f.m.yf. El natural de la India, originario de aquellos
Frinos, hijo de padres..."
and Indios:
"Indios. Lat. Indus." (referring to a Latin cognate of India).
Anyway, it seems to me the 'In Dios' idea has absolutely no merit at
all. Why would Spaniards say this about the Arawaks (or was it Caribes?)
in the first place. Columbus took a bunch of them home with him and sold
them in the slave market in Seville.
But I'm all ears if the "In Dios" supporters wish to make an argument and
back it up with some sort of facts.