JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. University of Minnesota Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Wicazo Sa Review. Nicaragua. Others believe that it stems from a word common to several American languages of the Caribbean and South America, namely Maraca (pronounced maraca, maraca, and mbaraca). This word, meaning rattle or gourd, is found as a place name in Venezuela (Maracapana, Maracay, Maracaibo), Trinidad (Maracas), Puerto Rico (Maracayu, etc.), Brazil (Maraca, Itamaraca) and elsewhere.Many very early maps of the Caribbean region show an island located to the northwest of Venezuela (where Nicaragua is actually located) called "tamaraque" which has been interpreted as t. amaraque standing for tierra or terra (land) of Amaraque. Later still "Indian" tended to become a negative castelike term ("indio" in Spanish and Portuguese zones) or the equivalent of wild, savage, brutish, or alien enemy in most parts of America. Now the continued use of "Indian" for First Americans has become very problematic, because of a large migration from India.A San Francisco newspaper ran an advertisement with big letters: "Wild Indian discovered in downtown San Francisco." I felt like calling up the advertiser, (the New Delhi restaurant) to complain about the ad's stereotype. But then it occurred to me that these were "real Indians" from India poking fun at "Indians."In 1980 there were 361,544 Indians from India in the United States. By 1990 their numbers had mushroomed to 815,447, an increase of 126%, and these numbers do not include Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, both of whom are also Indians by virtue of being derived from pre-1948 India. If this trend continues, the number of "real Indians" will catch up with the Bureau of the Census' figures for U.S.-derived "American Indians" sometime between 2000 and 2010. (By 1980 Asian Indians already outnumbered Native Americans in the northeastern U.S.) Large numbers of "Real Indians" are also migrating to Canada and have been present in Trinidad, Guyana and other parts of the Caribbean for years. Many of these Caribbean "Indians" are also moving north to the U.S. and Canada.In any case, the "wild Indian" of the San Francisco ad was certainly not a Lakota, not a Delaware! Who are the "real" Indians then? Ironically, the immigration of a million or so Asian Indians to North America comes at the precise time when some indigenous people are trying to deny "Indian" status to persons who are not recognized as such by a United States federally-recognized tribal or band government or who lack some document which identifies them as being "Indian."But are any of us (who are of indigenous American descent) really Indians anyway? Should we fight over a name which ...