Husky,
A few things need to be understood:
1. Irrespective all the debate on direction of migration, what is clear is this: Arya (Anglicized as "Aryan", just like very harmless "Mongolian", and "Tibetean") -- was indeed the name of an ethnicity ("tribe") during vedic and near post-vedic period. Evidence is in the older parts of the R^igveda samhitA itself. Above tag was in exclusive use of one particular "tribe", and only later acquired the other meaning of "Noble".
2. Later, many desha-s ("Countries", which too is harmless, so don't get alarmed) of jambUdvIpa where a particular tribe was dominant, the country acquired its name from that dominant tribe. "Andhra" was one such tribe that gave name to the Andhra country. likewise are the names gujarAta, kamboja, kerala, karNATaka and so on. Of course the best understood example can be the most recent of such event - Assam gets its name from Ahoms who migrated as late as last 500 years back or so from east.
3. the tribe names also gave birth to "loaded" words added later in saMskR^ita. Like:
Arya = "Noble";
anArya = "not noble"
dasyu (ethnically some non-Arya tribes, well documented) = thief;
chaura/chora (from choLa) = thief; -- this one is at times disputed too, but has strong literary support.
mlechCha (another non-Arya ethnicity) = foreigner, but later on very much used in a demeaning sense;
yavana (originally an indegenous ethnicity) = greek/foreigner, later on also moslems; in late works used with anger and demeaningly;
comparable with angrez or firangI, harmlessly derived from 'Angles' and 'Frank' respectively; but today not used without somewhat negative sense.
likewise the other side of the picture:
ari (derived from Arya too) = enemy;
sura/asura becoming epithets to address the other by Indo-Iranian people;
4. all of the above in far ancient history only. So dont use the terms that don't apply to that period, e.g. 'Hindu'. Of course if you meant by that term a civilization, then thats might be accurate enough, although might confuse some with a set of religious practice/belief.
5. There was of course a sustained migration of North Indians into south, in old past. This is irrespective of AIT/OIT etc.
6. "draviDa" is a well accepted historic term applied to an ethnicity, and related with words such as Damila, damila and tamiLa etc. All these words were broadly used in our literature. This too of course comprised many tribes in it, but the non draviDa-s often referred to these people as a consolidated draviDa. I see no problem in using the harmless word 'draviDa' for that particular ethnicity.
A few things need to be understood:
1. Irrespective all the debate on direction of migration, what is clear is this: Arya (Anglicized as "Aryan", just like very harmless "Mongolian", and "Tibetean") -- was indeed the name of an ethnicity ("tribe") during vedic and near post-vedic period. Evidence is in the older parts of the R^igveda samhitA itself. Above tag was in exclusive use of one particular "tribe", and only later acquired the other meaning of "Noble".
2. Later, many desha-s ("Countries", which too is harmless, so don't get alarmed) of jambUdvIpa where a particular tribe was dominant, the country acquired its name from that dominant tribe. "Andhra" was one such tribe that gave name to the Andhra country. likewise are the names gujarAta, kamboja, kerala, karNATaka and so on. Of course the best understood example can be the most recent of such event - Assam gets its name from Ahoms who migrated as late as last 500 years back or so from east.
3. the tribe names also gave birth to "loaded" words added later in saMskR^ita. Like:
Arya = "Noble";
anArya = "not noble"
dasyu (ethnically some non-Arya tribes, well documented) = thief;
chaura/chora (from choLa) = thief; -- this one is at times disputed too, but has strong literary support.
mlechCha (another non-Arya ethnicity) = foreigner, but later on very much used in a demeaning sense;
yavana (originally an indegenous ethnicity) = greek/foreigner, later on also moslems; in late works used with anger and demeaningly;
comparable with angrez or firangI, harmlessly derived from 'Angles' and 'Frank' respectively; but today not used without somewhat negative sense.
likewise the other side of the picture:
ari (derived from Arya too) = enemy;
sura/asura becoming epithets to address the other by Indo-Iranian people;
4. all of the above in far ancient history only. So dont use the terms that don't apply to that period, e.g. 'Hindu'. Of course if you meant by that term a civilization, then thats might be accurate enough, although might confuse some with a set of religious practice/belief.
5. There was of course a sustained migration of North Indians into south, in old past. This is irrespective of AIT/OIT etc.
6. "draviDa" is a well accepted historic term applied to an ethnicity, and related with words such as Damila, damila and tamiLa etc. All these words were broadly used in our literature. This too of course comprised many tribes in it, but the non draviDa-s often referred to these people as a consolidated draviDa. I see no problem in using the harmless word 'draviDa' for that particular ethnicity.