Serious, respectful question.

[needledriver]

I was just in an on-line discussion with Tom, who I had worked with for years. He was not all all pleased with my use of "First Americans":

That “american” moniker was an imposition on my ancestors (1924) and that “first american” appellation was also made up by white folx. Please wear “f.a.” with all the white pride you can muster!

When I asked what my friend Tom would prefer, another poster made a joke, but I replied:

It's a serious question. When I know what nation someone belongs to I am happy to refer to them as Navajo or Cherokee, etc. but when I need to collectively refer to the peoples who were present in North, Central, or South America when the Europeans arrived, what term do I use? I didn't realize that First Americans was a hot button - I apologize Tom - but what where does that leave me? "Indians" is a hard no, "American Indians" combines the worst of both choices, but "native" doesn't work either - whether our ancestors walked across a land bridge 35,000 years ago or off a gang plank in the 1900s, none of us are native to the Americas. There must be a general term which accurately and respectfully names the peoples who were present in North, Central, or South America when the Europeans arrived. What is it?

Tom replied:

“…There must be a general term which accurately and respectfully names the peoples who were present…”.
It’s a valid question if you’re a product of the so-called “western civilization”.
Reducing 500 distinct and separate tribes of this country currently called “america” has been a white-thing since First Contact and one that has been only beneficial to white people.
“Indians” is based in geographical ignorance and Taino skin color. The racist worldview of the European broad-brush carried this descriptor into so-called mexico, south america, canada and the american west.
The creation and usage of a general term for all “Indians” made it easier for racist colonists and settlers to “deal” with Native folk as “Others”. The phrase “merciless Indian savages” in the Declaration of Independence makes the continued land theft and genocide of Manifest Destiny much more palatable to a white supremacist audience.
Present day usage of “Indians”, “Native Americans” (Native folks didn’t ask for this…), “first americans” (america didn’t recognize Natives as citizens of the US until 1924), “Indian Country”, “r_dskins”, “braves”, “warriors”, ect. perpetuate Native otherness. No wonder it took almost 250 years to seat one of us in a Cabinet position.
“… none of us are native to the Americas…” is more convenient ahistorical racist bullshit.
The “settling” and “property ownership” of stolen land only took 250+ years for white people, who had guns and ammo. Past and present imagining of a pre-contact america that was void of people and with millions of acres of “empty, unused” land feeds the Manifest Destiny myth and lets white folx sleep easier at night.
The amount of cognitive dissonance required to ignore millenniums of prior and present Native habitation of this land is staggering.
So, what to “call” us? We are the Native People to this land, We are descended from the original inhabitants. We are the Indigenous People of this country currently called “america”. This has always been our homeland, it will always be.
If you require further specificity, utilize a political designation. Tribal nations such as Cherokee, Seminole, or Lakota are equivalent to “american”.
And how do you find out a person’s tribal connection and/or preference?:
Ask.

Tom's answer held more heat than light, and I am not trying to provoke anything, so I am walking away from that discussion. I notice the name of this Group is "First Americans", which brings me back to wondering - what is the general term which accurately and respectfully names the peoples who were present in North, Central, or South America when the Europeans arrived?