Names, by any other name.
(beyond, I'd assume, terms that translate to "The People" and "Us"). RNE could correct me if I'm wrong. That seems like a handicap for a people. Identities like "American" or "Japanese" are a powerful binding force in a society and give it the power to take united action. It's yet another interesting "what-if" line of inquiry to imagine how things might've turned out if the NAs had had just a few more centuries
You are, for the most part, correct nearly all tribes called themselves some variation of the term “the people” in their own language. Of course the modern tribal names are mostly corruptions Anglicized by early Government Authorities or common terminology fixed by same in Official records. Example “Creek”, the name was given to the loosely organized federation of tribal towns by early settlers due to the fact that they always lived close to water. I.E. creeks. It is actually Muscogeee, or in the written Mvscokee. Or the lumping together of discrete tribal groupings, The ‘Sioux’ are a good example, seven separate tribes placed under one label by the federal government.
Over the last fifty years most have come to use the term ‘Indian’, often with a great deal of pride. Traditions have been mixing, interchanging, morphing during the same period. It isn’t uncommon to see an eastern tribal member taking on southern plains dress and manner these days. One of the largest factors in this blending of cultures is the still growing number of powwows across the country. Added to increasing intermarriage of tribal bloodlines, this has had a unifying effect on widely diverse cultures. A good number of farsighted individuals have wondered if this will lead to a more or less single culture, or block. Which was one of the “take-a-current-trend-and-see-where-it-goes” stories that Slick began, titled Insurrection
As for Tom’s comment about property rights, even those tribes who were well on their way though long slow process toward an agribased society didn’t believe they owned the land. Still holding the ancient belief that each generation was simply living on the land at the grace and sufferance of the Creator. A favor that could and would be revoked at any time if the land, and all that was upon it, were not treated properly. That does not mean they would not defend their right to live on and use a certain piece of land.
But as for actually being the sole possessor of it, with the right to ‘sell’ it? No, no more than they could ‘sell’ the sky or water in the river. Many of the early treaties were signed by tribal elders who thought the encroaching settlers were insane to pay for such an idiotic thing as ‘owning’ a particular parcel of land.
Everyone knew you couldn’t own land, right?