I don't know how much of an exposure you have to various cultures, but I hope you keep in mind that many Indians find it offensive when you call them "the other kind of indians".
I'll put it in a manner you can understand. I see that you're Dane. I suppose the US has a significant populace with Danish ancestry. How would you like it if they refer to you as the other kind of Dane. I've also come across anecdotes where Brits visiting the US were told by some rude people to learn to speak English properly.
In an American context, it is understandable to think "Indian" signifies "American Indian". Now that East Indian immigration verges on outnumbering American Indians, that will probably change, but it's pretty silly to get offended by historical geographical misunderstandings. I mean, let's vilify Columbus for the right reasons. Besides, what's wrong with Native Americans? Why would it be a put-down to share a name with them? It's not like someone called you "French". b^)
...learn to speak English properly.
It is a truth universally acknowledged among speakers of English who've spoken with many other speakers of English, that the worst English-speakers are the English. I find the Irish to be the most intelligible and melodious, especially those Irish who have lived overseas. "BBC" English, however, is not the way that most English people speak, and besides the UK has no monopoly on that dialect.
> ... by historical geographical misunderstandings
If only it were just historical!
> Besides, what's wrong with Native Americans?
Nothing! That's an excellent term.
> Why would it be a put-down to share a name with them?
I never said anything about it being a put-down. To me, it's just annoying when people write "Indian" and assume that it will be understood to mean "Native American".
My point (with bringing up Danes and Brits too) was that some manners of speaking reek of ignorance. "In an American context" sounds like a weak excuse to perpetuate expressions rooted in ignorance. For example, when I learnt of the appropriate meaning of the word "Caucasian"[1], I stopped using it to refer generally to people of European descent. Now, I get annoyed when Americans use it that way ;-)
> Now that East Indian immigration ...
"East Indian" does not mean to me what it means to you. I'm South Indian. Historically, "East Indian" meant something else entirely [2].
Regarding Caucasian, why would you get annoyed? Words can and often do have multiple appropriate meanings. One of the wonderful things about natural language is our ability to distinguish among different word meanings based on context.
Anyone who insists upon only a single meaning for each word will have a considerably poorer vocabulary because of it.
Furthermore, if you're going to rule out all words with spurious etymologies, I suspect you're going to have to eliminate quite a lot of words from your vocabulary. For example, stop using "turkey" to refer to the bird eaten in certain parts of the world.
> Words can and often do have multiple appropriate meanings.
You seem to greatly overestimate our ability to distinguish among different word meanings based on context. The meanings are not all appropriate when they conflict. I first discovered this conflicting meaning of "Caucasian" when discussing something with a Polish friend. Unlike me, he did not default to the popular American meaning of "Caucasian". That led to us misunderstanding each other for a few minutes. "Indian" has caused me enough headaches online. I'll reiterate: not everyone defaults to popular American (mis-)usages.
Leave aside the matter of popular usage for the time being. Do you also think that if population geneticists were to use all these conflicting meanings, it would cause them no problems at all?
I hope my explanation also disabuses you of the notions that I'm "[insisting] upon only a single meaning for each word" or trying to "rule out all words with spurious etymologies". Don't worry about me having a considerably poorer vocabulary; I do extremely well on most tests. When I write, people may have trouble understanding my point, but it's never been because I used to wrong words. Addendum: if it were to turn out that I have used the wrong words, I'd learn, and correct myself.
Is that also "annoying" to you? After all, some hillbilly somewhere might not appreciate the many nuances of differing cultural practices between Sumatra and Tamil Nadu. Worse yet, she might not even care! Is there any aspect of any European language that doesn't annoy you?
I'll put it in a manner you can understand. I see that you're Dane. I suppose the US has a significant populace with Danish ancestry. How would you like it if they refer to you as the other kind of Dane. I've also come across anecdotes where Brits visiting the US were told by some rude people to learn to speak English properly.