usage of "Indian"
retr...@my-deja.com
acolumn on designations for Natives such as "Indian" and racist terms
such as "redskin" and "squaw". In Canada, particularly Eastern Canada,
usage of the term "Indian" is diminishing among Natives and non-natives
alike. I've been told by many Americans that Native Americans don't find
the term in any way objectionable, and in fact prefer to be called
"Indian" than any other term.
I doubt if the matter is as simple as that, and wanted to verify what
the reality is. Is there any consensus on preferred designation or does
it vary on a tribe to tibe basis? Are there some tribes who actively
don't like the term Indian? Does anybody have any idea why there is a
somewhat different attitude among Natives in Canada from the USA?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
KDenn39
Indian.. we dont plan to change just to be politically correct...
I personally think "Native American" has a fake tacky sound to it...
Kip King
called Indian than Native American.
Wayne George
this point on ,you can call me anything you want...just don't call me
"Late for Dinner"....
Mi'gwetch
Wayne George, Anishinabeg/Chippewa artist from Aazhoodena Territory and
Beyond
the smiling crow ;-)
~~~~
lenapelady
As for the "Native American"/"Indian"/"NDN" controversy, it's impossible to
come up with one answer. Some hate NA, others like it; some like First
Nations; some don't; some aren't insulted by Indian, some are...
in short, there's no AP stylebook rule that covers this one.
Me, I like Indian, except when I read a headine that says "Clinton meets
with Indian leaders:" and it's talking about his trip overseas....sigh. But
I also use Native American on my webpages, and other places, as it's readily
understood by the great majority of people, so it's, to me (and to me only)
a common sense choice for "mass communication." But then I tend to use both
terms, NA and Indian, within the same piece if I can, such as "Native
American leaders are meeting this week in Washington to draw up battle plans
against Sen. Slade Gorton's continued attacks on sovereignty. ...then later
I might say "Indian tribes in Washington state have long had a running
battle with Gorton, who still bears a grudge for losing a key...." etc. etc.
(I just made that up from old stuff; I used to write a lot about our
"friend" Slade on my pages a couple of summers ago.)Anyway, that way I
acknowledge both.
Best choice, of course, is to refer to someone's tribe if it's about a
single person or group, but also, as a writer, I understand the balancing
act of Indian/Native American.
I eschew the word "Metis," by the way, unless I have occasion to refer to
the SPECIFIC AND VERY REAL Metis peoples recognized in Canada. Alas, down
here, it now seems that everyone who suddenly decides they have a smidgen of
NDN blood then pops up and calls themselves "Metis," apparently in an effort
to grasp some form of what they perceive as status by appropriating and
mis-using the very real, historically valid, and currently legally and
culturally valid "Metis." I have a Metis friend who can rant on that
endlessly, and it's a damned good rant that should be heeded, IMHO.
I think Sondra did some research on this too. And oh yea, thanks for asking!
:) LL
--
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
<retr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8baqag$3ep$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Wayne George
related to Conrad B. and his buddies the Canadian G. , you should
re-evaluate what you do with the money your paid for letting
others(those two) dictate to you what your printed word is.
the crow ;-)
~~~~
RedLakeOgitchida
However, I do abhor the term "American Indian." To me, it makes it sound like
we are Indians who are the property of America. On my list of loyalties, Red
Lake is my first and foremost as my nation. America is a far second. So if I
chose to be "politically correct" then I will say I am Red Lake
Ojibwe-Anishinaabe.
As an cultural educator in local tribal colleges, I do emphasize the use of the
term Native American. I chose to do this because when you apply the term
American Indian, you are looking at a human group of people through a tunnel
vision. In other words, it gives rise to the perception that Indian people are
located within the boundaries of the United States. It becomes a term that
separates us and divides us. On the other hand, Native American creates an
awareness that Indian people are the indigenous inhabitants - of not only the
United States - but Canada, Mexico, Central America, and South America.
But in the end, it really doesn't matter what term is used. American Indian,
Indian, Native American are all terms of colonialism.
lenapelady wrote:
bewitagos
Cousin Wayne,
back in the day, we Odawa used to invite those Lakota warriors
to dinner....umm, glad we made peace, boy they were sure tasty though.
Regretfully,
Jimmie
Wayne George wrote "I'm an Indian living out western Canada"....from
retr...@my-deja.com
"bewitagos" <wolf...@home.com> wrote:
>
> Cousin Wayne,
> back in the day, we Odawa used to invite those Lakota warriors
> to dinner....umm, glad we made peace, boy they were sure tasty though.
>
> Regretfully,
> Jimmie
>
I guess this comes under the rubric; "If you can't beat 'em; eat 'em
> Wayne George wrote "I'm an Indian living out western Canada"....from
> : this point on ,you can call me anything you want...just don't call
me
> : "Late for Dinner"....
>
>
Adam
>
> I write a language column for a Canadian newspaper. I want to write
> acolumn on designations for Natives such as "Indian" and racist terms
The most often term in Indian Country is Indian. Prior to colonization
there would have been no such monolithic racial distinction.
Wasn't it funny how John Rocker got busted by baseball for biggoted
comments and then returned to his team the Braves?
Shunkmanitu Ska
Indians of the Lakota and Cherokee Nations so my grand parents on that side
were Indians and that made my mother Indian so guess I am also Indian (of
the Lakota and Cherokee nations).
--
Shunkmanitu Ska
<retr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8baqag$3ep$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I write a language column for a Canadian newspaper. I want to write
> acolumn on designations for Natives such as "Indian" and racist terms
> such as "redskin" and "squaw". In Canada, particularly Eastern Canada,
> usage of the term "Indian" is diminishing among Natives and non-natives
> alike. I've been told by many Americans that Native Americans don't find
> the term in any way objectionable, and in fact prefer to be called
> "Indian" than any other term.
> I doubt if the matter is as simple as that, and wanted to verify what
> the reality is. Is there any consensus on preferred designation or does
> it vary on a tribe to tibe basis? Are there some tribes who actively
> don't like the term Indian? Does anybody have any idea why there is a
> somewhat different attitude among Natives in Canada from the USA?
>
>
Jessica C.
(Native American) was preferred. Shows how much I know! I remember the
first time I posted here, I had trouble deciding what term to use-
Indian or Native American. I usually say Indian, but I was worried
about offending some one so I used the term Native American. Then I
noticed that most people here used the word Indian.
Jessica
KDenn39 wrote in message
<20000322120822...@ng-xe1.aol.com>...
plpaul
Lou Redmond
Indian, but have since changed back. When I worked for the Forest Service,
I ran into a bald, blond, blue-eyed guy that was listed as Native American.
A group of us were putting together a commitee to bring NA issues to the
forefront, so were given a list of folks that had noted that they were
Native American. When I went to talk to this guy, it turned out that he was
2nd generation Hungarian! His rational for listing as a Native American was
that he had been born within the political boundaries of the United States!
In reality, he may have a possibly valid claim to the use of that phrase, so
I went back to being know as an Indian. JMHO
-Lou-
retr...@my-deja.com
ada...@hotmail.com wrote:
> retr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > I write a language column for a Canadian newspaper. I want to write
> > acolumn on designations for Natives such as "Indian" and racist
terms
>
> there would have been no such monolithic racial distinction.
>
> Wasn't it funny how John Rocker got busted by baseball for biggoted
> comments and then returned to his team the Braves?
>
Redskins.
Zastee
Canadians is a little Crazy from Cold. ;-)~
In article <8baqag$3ep$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, retr...@my-deja.com writes:
>I write a language column for a Canadian newspaper. I want to write
>acolumn on designations for Natives such as "Indian" and racist terms
>such as "*******" and "*****". In Canada, particularly Eastern Canada,
>usage of the term "Indian" is diminishing among Natives and non-natives
>alike. I've been told by many Americans that Native Americans don't find
>the term in any way objectionable, and in fact prefer to be called
>"Indian" than any other term.
>I doubt if the matter is as simple as that, and wanted to verify what
>the reality is. Is there any consensus on preferred designation or does
>it vary on a tribe to tibe basis? Are there some tribes who actively
>don't like the term Indian? Does anybody have any idea why there is a
>somewhat different attitude among Natives in Canada from the USA?
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Do not walk behind me, I may not lead.
Do not walk ahead of me, I may not follow.
Do not walk beside me. Just leave me the hell alone.
Erik A. Mattila
That's where Mexico rules, in my opinion. Most of Latin America, for that
matter. The term "Indigenas" is perfect for refering to the 'supergroup.'
There's no Engligh equivalency, though. "Indigenouses"?? "Indigenouss
Ones"?? Maybe a German variation, "Indigemenschen." Hey, I like that.
Erik Mattila
>
>
> --
> What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
> -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
>
> <retr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8baqag$3ep$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I write a language column for a Canadian newspaper. I want to write
> > acolumn on designations for Natives such as "Indian" and racist terms
> > such as "redskin" and "squaw". In Canada, particularly Eastern Canada,
> > usage of the term "Indian" is diminishing among Natives and non-natives
> > alike. I've been told by many Americans that Native Americans don't find
> > the term in any way objectionable, and in fact prefer to be called
> > "Indian" than any other term.
> > I doubt if the matter is as simple as that, and wanted to verify what
> > the reality is. Is there any consensus on preferred designation or does
> > it vary on a tribe to tibe basis? Are there some tribes who actively
> > don't like the term Indian? Does anybody have any idea why there is a
> > somewhat different attitude among Natives in Canada from the USA?
> >
> >
Lawrence G. Leichtman, M.D.
> lenapelady wrote:
>
> > First ditch "redskin" and "squaw," period.
> >
> > As for the "Native American"/"Indian"/"NDN" controversy, it's impossible to
> > come up with one answer. Some hate NA, others like it; some like First
> > Nations; some don't; some aren't insulted by Indian, some are...
> >
> > in short, there's no AP stylebook rule that covers this one.
> >
If I called my wife a squaw she would probably John Bobbitt me. She does
prefer to be called Delaware or Lenape and not Native american. She can
live with the term Indian.
--
Lawrence G. Leichtman, M.D., FAAP, FACMG
Genetics and Disabilities Diagnostic Care Center
933 First Colonial Road Suite 109
Virginia Beach, VA 23454
757-425-1969
lei...@exis.net
john mohdom
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>That's where Mexico rules, in my opinion. Most of Latin
America, for that
>matter. The term "Indigenas" is perfect for refering to the
'supergroup.'
>There's no Engligh equivalency, though. "Indigenouses"??
"Indigenouss
>Ones"?? Maybe a German variation, "Indigemenschen." Hey, I
like that.
my vote goes to autochthonous (formed or originating in the
place where found) because it connotes a oneness with the
environment which could not be claimed by your average non-
Indian euroamerican. 80)
john
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
RedLakeOgitchida
(Autochtonous Movement)...and at powwows we would add a slang side to it and
simply call each other, Auto, or there are two or more, Autos.
Hmmmmmmm....interesting. :)
john mohdom
<rd...@uswest.net> wrote:
>Hmmmmmmm....so then the American Indian Movement would simply
become AM
>(Autochtonous Movement)...and at powwows we would add a slang
side to it and
>simply call each other, Auto, or there are two or more, Autos.
>Hmmmmmmm....interesting. :)
and perhaps those from reservations might become autoz. you are
right; I neglected to point out what an awkward (or awk! word)
word autochthonous is. 80) sometimes issues like that become
larger than the possible accuracy of the word. in the case of
'Indian' I think the issue of historic usage carries a lot of
weight.
when I was a kid we had what we called Indian-head pennies or
nickels (also known as buffalo nickels). perhaps in this century
we shall have autochthonous-head dollars....I don't think so!
RedLakeOgitchida
auto are you?" The other one answer: "Cherokee." Ayyyyeeeeee :)
john mohdom
<rd...@uswest.net> wrote:
>I can see it now, John. Skin meets skin on the street..."Hey,
bro, what kind of
>auto are you?" The other one answer: "Cherokee." Ayyyyeeeeee
:)
..hey, who are your people? Pontiacs.
(this could degenerate badly 80)
Erik A. Mattila
adjective just like "indigenous" (and both mean the same thing). The only
English noun which means the same is 'native' but the "native's are restless."
In Latin America the term "Indigena" (een dee hay na ) arose in reaction to the
term "Indio" which carried all the historical baggage that offended members of
various tribes. So it's kind of early Latin PC. But there was another reason,
and that was in Mexico and other Latin countries there are large, majority
populations of Indians who effectively have an image of "Indio" that is
something other then themselves. Ask a Yucateca "are you an Indio?" and he
will say "No, indios are those guy who live over in the woods in Chiapas and
don't wear any clothes" (or something like that.)
So really, the adoption of the Spanish term 'indigena' is simply letting a noun
form for 'indigenous' slip into English usage, where there was none. What's
the problem with that? English already is composed of five or six languages, a
few more won't hurt. We already have 'macho' 'serveza' 'gringo' and even a few
Nahuatl words like "tamale pie' and 'taco.'
If you really look at the use history of the word 'native' you can see that
white folks have a perfectly legitimate claim to that word. I was born in San
Francisco, for examle, and in SF there's a long standing discussion about
'Native San Franciscans vs. the imports after WWII (which are now the majority
in the Bay Area). You can see the term 'native' being used all over the place
in contexts outside of the arena of Indian/Naive American issues.
What about it? Shall we start a national coalition : I.N.D.I.G.E.N.A. (I
Never Did Include Gringo English Native Americans )?
Erik Mattila
PS. Hey, I liked that discussion below about the American Autochthonous
Movement. But it's too easy to get confused with AA or AAA (especially when
the old Aimsters get so old they change from "Movement" to "Association" :-).
But on the other hand, they can offer a line of maps of the Longest Walk and
offer a line of insurance for NDN cars. Even they could offer a buying service
for NDN cars, like the AAA does, you know, an agent would contact the seller
and negotiate the sale -- 3 '72 Mercury rims, the rear end of a '57 Ford
Montclaire, and a custom Chain steering wheel for that '81 one-eyed Chevy
Malibu 'pick-up' in the back yard.
john mohdom wrote:
> In article <38D9B7C3...@tomatoweb.com>, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>
> >That's where Mexico rules, in my opinion. Most of Latin
> America, for that
> >matter. The term "Indigenas" is perfect for refering to the
> 'supergroup.'
> >There's no Engligh equivalency, though. "Indigenouses"??
> "Indigenouss
> >Ones"?? Maybe a German variation, "Indigemenschen." Hey, I
> like that.
>
> my vote goes to autochthonous (formed or originating in the
> place where found) because it connotes a oneness with the
> environment which could not be claimed by your average non-
> Indian euroamerican. 80)
Anne
Native people Indians. India did not exist then. It was called
Hindustan. What old Chris said was "in dios" (sp?) which meant in god
or something similar.
Kip King
Erik A. Mattila
I really think this tale is a classic 'like begets like inference.' For
example, the Spanish form would have been "En Dios," not "In dios."
(there is on 'in' in Spanish). Since "Dios" means 'God" in Spanish, it
is not a plural form, so there would be no singular form, i.e. 'Dio' as
in 'Indio'. "En Dios" ( "of God" or "about God") is pronounced 'in
deeoz' while "indio" is pronounced 'een dee o.' If the Spaniards wanted
to descripe the Arawaks as 'godly' they would have used "piadoso," if
divine, the would have used 'divino,' or if the wanted to describe them
as blessed they would have used "bendito" or "feliz." But there's really
no idiomas in Spanish where 'en Dios' is used, at least that I know of.
It doesn't really mean anything. It merely sounds like "Idios" if you
mispronounce it.
Additionally, regardless of how the people who lived in the Indian
Subcontenent in 1492 described themselves (there were actually many
nations each with different names, beside "Hindustan") the fact remains
that Europeans since at least the time of Alexander called that place
"India." Greek and Roman texts always refer to it as "India" and it
comes from an early geographers (I can't recall if it was Herodotus or
another) defined this land as 'from the Indus river to China (Cathy, or
whatever they called China then). See Herodotus, Pliny, Ptolemy etc.
But Columbus' own writing make all this clear. Just take the very first
letter to Ferdinand and Isabella, published in Europe in Latin in 1494:
http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/columbus/toc.html
"Q voniam suscepte prouinciæ rem perfectâ
me consecutû fuisse: gratum tibi fore scio.
has constitui exarare: quæ te vniuscuiusque
rei in hoc nostro itinere geste inuêteque admoneât.
Tricesimotercio die postquam Gadibus discessi: in +mare Indicû +
perueni: vbi plurimas Iu[n]sulas innumeris
habitatas hominibus reperi: quarû omnium pro foe-
licissimo Rege nostro: præconio celebrato, et vexillis
extensis: côtradicente nemine possessionê accepi.
primeque earum: diui Saluatoris nomê imposui.
cuius fretus auxilio: tam ad hanc quam ad ceteras alias
peruenimus. Eam vero +Indi+ Guanahanyn vocant.
Aliarum etiam vnâquanque nouo nomine nûcupaui.
Quippe aliam Insulam Sancte Marie Conceptionis.
aliam Fernandinam. aliam Hysabellam. aliâ "
(I've added the '+' to mark the reverence to "Indian")
(translation)
"Because my undertakings have attained success, I know that it will be
pleasing to you: these I have determined to relate, so that you may be
made
acquainted with everything done and discovered in this our voyage. On the
thirty-third day after I departed from Cadiz, I came to the +Indian sea+,
where +(mare Indicu)+
I found many islands inhabited by men without number, of all which I took
possession for our most fortunate king, with proclaiming heralds and
flying
standards, no one objecting. To the first of these I gave the name of the
blessed Saviour, on whose aid relying I had reached this as well as the
other islands. But the +Indians+ call it Guanahany. I also called each
one of +(Indi)+
the others by a new name. For I ordered one island to be called Santa
Maria
of the Conception, another Fernandina, another Isabella, another Juana,
and so on with the rest."
The next paragraph makes it clear that C thought he was in Asia.
"As soon as we had arrived at that island which I have just now said was
called Juana, I proceeded along its coast towards the west for some
distance; I found it so large and without perceptible end, that I
believed it to
be not an island, but the continental country of Cathay; seeing, however,
no
towns or cities situated on the sea-coast, but only some villages and
rude
farms, with whose inhabitants I was unable to converse, because as soon
as they saw us they took flight."
Cathay, as you know, is what Europeans called China in those days. So it
doesn't make much sense to argue that Colon didn't think he was in Asia,
if he mistook Cuba for China, does it?
The 16th century Diccionario de Autoridades (1726 -1739) gives this
definition for "Indio"
"INDIO, DIA.f.m.yf. El natural de la India, originario de aquellos
Frinos, hijo de padres..."
and Indios:
"Indios. Lat. Indus." (referring to a Latin cognate of India).
Anyway, it seems to me the 'In Dios' idea has absolutely no merit at
all. Why would Spaniards say this about the Arawaks (or was it Caribes?)
in the first place. Columbus took a bunch of them home with him and sold
them in the slave market in Seville.
But I'm all ears if the "In Dios" supporters wish to make an argument and
back it up with some sort of facts.
Erik Mattila
retr...@my-deja.com
> >
> > Historically, Columbus was not looking for India and mistakenly
called
> > Native people Indians. India did not exist then. It was called
> > Hindustan. What old Chris said was "in dios" (sp?) which meant in
god
> > or something similar.
>
I suppose the reason I , as a non-Native, have a problem using the word
"Indian" is because Columbus used the term erroneously and I associate
Columbus with negative images like the bullshit that he "discovered
America." More egregiously, I assoiate Columbus and therefore the term
Indian, with the genocide committed against indigenous peoples in the
Americas.
tkavanagh
> > Anne wrote:
> > >
> > > Historically, Columbus was not looking for India and mistakenly
> called
> > > Native people Indians. India did not exist then. It was called
> > > Hindustan. What old Chris said was "in dios" (sp?) which meant in
> god
> > > or something similar.
I was wondering when this would come up again.
Old Chris said nothing of the sort. I have posted a scan of the first page
of his first "letter" written while he was still in the Azores on his
return:
http://php.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/colon.gif
Notice the underlined words on line 6 and later: "los indios" [that little
swiggle over the "i" was a standard Spanish abbreviation for the "n"
Just trying to keep this historically accurate.
tk
Anuh1
In article <8baqag$3ep$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, retr...@my-deja.com writes:
>I write a language column for a Canadian newspaper. I want to write
>acolumn on designations for Natives such as "Indian" and racist terms
>such as "redskin" and "squaw". In Canada, particularly Eastern Canada,
>usage of the term "Indian" is diminishing among Natives and non-natives
>alike. I've been told by many Americans that Native Americans don't find
>the term in any way objectionable, and in fact prefer to be called
>"Indian" than any other term.
>I doubt if the matter is as simple as that, and wanted to verify what
>the reality is. Is there any consensus on preferred designation or does
>it vary on a tribe to tibe basis? Are there some tribes who actively
>don't like the term Indian? Does anybody have any idea why there is a
>somewhat different attitude among Natives in Canada from the USA?
When I was travelling, back in the early 80's, I spent a great deal of time
both in Eastern Canada and in Alberta (gave short shrift to the middle of the
country as I wasn't called there and never got as far west as BC, although I
was invited).
I found that in the eastern part of the country, most of the semi-young (20's
and 30's) natives tended to want to be called Native Canadians since they
didn't like the term Indian at all. In Alberta, few ever used that designation
and nearly all used the word Indian.
The same seems to be true in the US. Many east coasters prefer Native American
because they are so incensed over Columbus, the Mayflower, Plymouth and a slew
of other issues that didn't directly affect the western peoples. In the west,
though, most still use Indian.
Doesn't really matter, imo, as we are still what we always were. I'm Cherokee
and if someone asks if I am Indian, I always respond just that way. No, I'm
not some generic Indian, I am Cherokee and always will be.
>
Anuh1
<rfea...@prairieweb.com> writes:
>His rational for listing as a Native American was
>that he had been born within the political boundaries of the United States!
>In reality, he may have a possibly valid claim to the use of that phrase, so
>I went back to being know as an Indian. JMHO
This is one of the best arguments that I have heard for NOT using NA as a
designation for us. It has been brought up by many in the past.
Anuh1
writes:
>Notice the underlined words on line 6 and later: "los indios" [that little
>swiggle over the "i" was a standard Spanish abbreviation for the "n"
I read a book a good many years ago that stated that Columbus wasn't even
trying to find India, that he was sailing from maps so old no one knew when
they had been made. And that he was in fact looking for a lost land that was
supposed to be full of gold and other tradeable items.
His references to India were supposedly meant to conceal the truth of his
journey and his true destination.
I found the book very interesting and the purported private diaries that he was
supposed to have kept, as well as snippets of maps that he was supposed to have
used.
To me that makes far more sense than spending that kind of money to find a
shorter route to India.
Mark K. Bilbo
seized the keyboard and feverishly tapped out:
[>I write a language column for a Canadian newspaper. I want to write
[>acolumn on designations for Natives such as "Indian" and racist terms
[>such as "redskin" and "squaw". In Canada, particularly Eastern Canada,
[>usage of the term "Indian" is diminishing among Natives and non-natives
[>alike. I've been told by many Americans that Native Americans don't find
[>the term in any way objectionable, and in fact prefer to be called
[>"Indian" than any other term.
[>I doubt if the matter is as simple as that, and wanted to verify what
[>the reality is. Is there any consensus on preferred designation or does
[>it vary on a tribe to tibe basis? Are there some tribes who actively
[>don't like the term Indian? Does anybody have any idea why there is a
[>somewhat different attitude among Natives in Canada from the USA?
I have no idea where the difference came from but "Indian" is very
common down here. "Indian" is all I ever hear.
(I hate "Native American" myself)
=======================================================
Mark K. Bilbo
=======================================================
"A comman man marvels at uncommon things; a wise man
marvels at the commonplace." -- Confucius
Mark K. Bilbo
<jess...@gmi.net> seized the keyboard and feverishly tapped out:
[>This is really interesting. I've always thought that the pc term
[>(Native American) was preferred. Shows how much I know! I remember the
[>first time I posted here, I had trouble deciding what term to use-
[>Indian or Native American. I usually say Indian, but I was worried
[>about offending some one so I used the term Native American. Then I
[>noticed that most people here used the word Indian.
I understand that up in Canada, it's definitely not the term to use.
But down in the US, it seems dominant.
Go figure.
Myself, I hate "Native American." Though it has legal meaning (and
includes, by the way, Hawaiians et al), it strikes me as an attempt to
reduce Indians to the status of an "ethnic group" within the US rather
than *citizens of their respective nations.
Rick Kerchee
>I write a language column for a Canadian newspaper. I want to write
>acolumn on designations for Natives such as "Indian" and racist terms
>such as "redskin" and "squaw". In Canada, particularly Eastern Canada,
>usage of the term "Indian" is diminishing among Natives and non-natives
>alike. I've been told by many Americans that Native Americans don't find
>the term in any way objectionable, and in fact prefer to be called
>"Indian" than any other term.
>I doubt if the matter is as simple as that, and wanted to verify what
>the reality is. Is there any consensus on preferred designation or does
>it vary on a tribe to tibe basis? Are there some tribes who actively
>don't like the term Indian? Does anybody have any idea why there is a
>somewhat different attitude among Natives in Canada from the USA?
>
>
>Before you buy.
Indian is all I even knew...or Comanche or numunu. Can't stand Native American
though. The way I see it, anyone born here is native american. That's like if
we ever make it to Mars, colonise it, and babies are born there...they will be
martians. Besides, too many syllables in Native American.... ;-)
As a side note, I noticed when I was living in England about 10 years ago,
that regardless of their ethnicity, people who were born there proudly said
they were English. I lived there for three years, but I'm sure there were some
who tenaciously clinged to their parents or grand-parents heritage...but I
never ran into them. Maybe some of the Sihks and Indians (as in India)
did...but the kids whose parents were from India all seemed to claim to be
English.
Rick
*******************************
I'm desperately trying to figure
out why kamikaze pilots wore helmets.
Rick Kerchee
>In article <38DB2931...@home.com>,
>Kip King <wod...@home.com> wrote:
>> This is what I've believed.
>>
>> >
>> > Historically, Columbus was not looking for India and mistakenly
>called
>> > Native people Indians. India did not exist then. It was called
>> > Hindustan. What old Chris said was "in dios" (sp?) which meant in
>god
>> > or something similar.
>>
>
>"Indian" is because Columbus used the term erroneously and I associate
>Columbus with negative images like the bullshit that he "discovered
>America." More egregiously, I assoiate Columbus and therefore the term
>Indian, with the genocide committed against indigenous peoples in the
>Americas.
>
Actually...Wooly Mammoths discovered America......or was it the T.Rex? Oh
well..I digress.
Rick Kerchee
>Historically, Columbus was not looking for India and mistakenly called
>Native people Indians. India did not exist then. It was called
>Hindustan. What old Chris said was "in dios" (sp?) which meant in god
>or something similar.
And a short time later, his men sent them all to God.
Rick Kerchee
>I really think this tale is a classic 'like begets like inference.' For
>example, the Spanish form would have been "En Dios," not "In dios."
>(there is on 'in' in Spanish).
<snip of some good stuff>
>Anyway, it seems to me the 'In Dios' idea has absolutely no merit at
>all. Why would Spaniards say this about the Arawaks (or was it Caribes?)
>in the first place. Columbus took a bunch of them home with him and sold
>them in the slave market in Seville.
>
>But I'm all ears if the "In Dios" supporters wish to make an argument and
>back it up with some sort of facts.
>
>Erik Mattila
Erik..thanks for the post. Great stuff! It is good to see a combination of
thought and fact used to defeat emotion and speculation.
Rick Kerchee
>In article <38DAC221...@uswest.net>, RedLakeOgitchida
><rd...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>I can see it now, John. Skin meets skin on the street..."Hey,
>bro, what kind of
>>auto are you?" The other one answer: "Cherokee." Ayyyyeeeeee
>:)
>
>
>(this could degenerate badly 80)
>
But where does that leave me...they quit making Comanches....buh!
Rick Kerchee
>In article <38D965...@hotmail.com>,
>ada...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> retr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> > I write a language column for a Canadian newspaper. I want to write
>> > acolumn on designations for Natives such as "Indian" and racist
>terms
>>
>> there would have been no such monolithic racial distinction.
>>
>> Wasn't it funny how John Rocker got busted by baseball for biggoted
>> comments and then returned to his team the Braves?
>>
>Lucky he didn't play pro football. He could have been returned to the
>Redskins.
But if he was an NDN guy who played for the Cowboys...no wait...that just
causes too much confusion.
Zastee
In article <uAUD4.14951$w81.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>, num...@hotmail.com
(Rick Kerchee) writes:
>In article <13f548b0...@usw-ex0105-034.remarq.com>, john mohdom
><johnmohdo...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <38DAC221...@uswest.net>, RedLakeOgitchida
>><rd...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>>I can see it now, John. Skin meets skin on the street..."Hey,
>>bro, what kind of
>>>auto are you?" The other one answer: "Cherokee." Ayyyyeeeeee
>>:)
>>
>>...hey, who are your people? Pontiacs.
>>
>>(this could degenerate badly 80)
>>
>
>But where does that leave me...they quit making Comanches....buh!
>
>Rick
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
john mohdom
num...@hotmail.com (Rick Kerchee) wrote:
>But where does that leave me...they quit making
Comanches....buh!
They don't make parts anymore for this model either.
maybe you can get some nice Dakota family to adopt 80)
Rick Kerchee
>In article <uAUD4.14951$w81.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
>num...@hotmail.com (Rick Kerchee) wrote:
>>But where does that leave me...they quit making
>Comanches....buh!
>
>They don't make parts anymore for this model either.
>
>maybe you can get some nice Dakota family to adopt 80)
>
>john
>
>
Dang...why couldn't there be a Porsche Nation?
john mohdom
num...@hotmail.com (Rick Kerchee) wrote:
>Dang...why couldn't there be a Porsche Nation?
well now; there are plenty of poor nations, but that's not quite
the same thing is it? 80(
RedLakeOgitchida
:)
Rick Kerchee wrote:
> In article <13f548b0...@usw-ex0105-034.remarq.com>, john mohdom <johnmohdo...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
> >In article <38DAC221...@uswest.net>, RedLakeOgitchida
> ><rd...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >>I can see it now, John. Skin meets skin on the street..."Hey,
> >bro, what kind of
> >>auto are you?" The other one answer: "Cherokee." Ayyyyeeeeee
> >:)
> >
> >...hey, who are your people? Pontiacs.
> >
> >(this could degenerate badly 80)
> >
>
> But where does that leave me...they quit making Comanches....buh!
>
john mohdom
<rd...@uswest.net> wrote:
>Rick...maybe you can reestablish it under the proposed Auto
Tribal Recognition Act. You just need to get a petition going
>:)
..AutoNation Automation? ...has a nice ring! 80)
Nancy L Torrey - Hesse
Would Poarch Creek Tribal Nation fit the bill????
john mohdom wrote in message
+ADw-0f326418.4d7158b8+AEA-usw-ex0104-087.remarq.com+AD4-...
In article
+ADw-iZaE4.1124+ACQ-9n5.86472+AEA-typhoon.austin.rr.com+AD4-,
numunu+AEA-hotmail.com (Rick Kerchee) wrote:
+AD4-Dang...why couldn't there be a Porsche Nation?
well now+ADs- there are plenty of poor nations, but
that's not quite
the same thing is it? 80(
john
+ACo- Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The
Internet's Discussion Network +ACo-
The fastest and easiest way to search and
participate in Usenet - Free+ACE-
What me worry?
Trika
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:10:06 GMT, num...@hotmail.com (Rick Kerchee)
wrote:
>In article <15f48b01...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com>, john mohdom <johnmohdo...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <uAUD4.14951$w81.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
>>num...@hotmail.com (Rick Kerchee) wrote:
>>>But where does that leave me...they quit making
>>Comanches....buh!
>>
>>They don't make parts anymore for this model either.
>>
>>maybe you can get some nice Dakota family to adopt 80)
>>
>>john
>>
>>
>
>Dang...why couldn't there be a Porsche Nation?
>
john mohdom
"Nancy L Torrey - Hesse" <NANCY_TOR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>Would Poarch Creek Tribal Nation fit the bill????
..well this flowery tangent did start with car nations.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
john mohdom
I suspect a Trump car nation would have no injun. ...or maybe a
spare one in the trunk like a Minneapolis squad car 80(