In response to the original question of British reference to Indians.The only source I have is television programs.There is a British show called 'The Kumars' which is done by Indians.I'm sure they refer to their British status as being Asians (of some sub-group reference).
And about the American Indian vs Native American issue.I was of the impression that the word 'indian' was simply another word for native, indigenous or aboriginal.I'm not really sure how specific to the country India it was meant to be.Many places start with the letter combination 'ind'.India, Indonesia, Indo-China, West Indes, South American Indian.I suspect that it is just another word for native 'in general'. .I think it's the early century film industry that dirtied the word 'indian'.Who really knows whether it's REALLY appropriate.Nobody has given us 'reasons' to to say Native instead of Indian.We're just 'demanded' to say yay or nay.So neither name-caller can really be blamed.
I'll just concur DDT's experiences of Australia.People from India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka are NOT refered to as Asians here.There's a huge distiction.I think that people form these countries just get umbrella'd as Indian, or they're called black.Rarely, if ever, Asian.
And, there was a post (sorry, I forgot to check your name) that mentioned Australia as a country that all Americans knew about.Only since the 2000 Olympics did Americans seem to know where Australia was.Moreso now since our country joined the G.W Bush-licking Co.To hammer home the point; Before either of these events, I saw an episode of Jay Leno where everyday New Yorkers were asked easy questions.One question was "Where is Australia located?", Leno asked, handing the map to a passer-by.And where did the guy point to? CANADA! Oh my!
He even gave him the clue "Australia is a COUNTRY.Do you still want to stick to your original answer".Why, yes he did! I don't expect Americans to know where Australia is, but I do expect them to know that 'Canada' is where Australia ISN'T.