African-American?
Steve Hayes
Thabo Mbeki
Paul Kruger
Nelson Mandela
Milton Obote
http://www.essortment.com/in/History.People/index.htm
Looks like someone should brush up on their geography a bit.
Steve Hayes
http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius
Donna Richoux
> The following are listed as "African-American Men of History"
>
> Thabo Mbeki
> Paul Kruger
> Nelson Mandela
> Milton Obote
>
> http://www.essortment.com/in/History.People/index.htm
Yes, that is a mistake, all right.
By following a link, I found this as contact information:
For content (article) related questions, email:
edi...@pagewise.com
I suggest people who find errors like these to send a (polite) note to
the site's makers. I have found in several other cases that careless
errors were fixed quickly.
--
Best wishes --- Donna Richoux
Steve MacGregor
>The following are listed as "African-American Men of History"
>
>Thabo Mbeki
>Paul Kruger
>Nelson Mandela
>Milton Obote
Yup. Some people just don't think out the meanings of the words
they use. Like the folks who say "native American" to mean
"American Indian".
--
Whom are you going to call? GRAMMAR BUSTERS!
Peter P
"Steve MacGregor" <stevema...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> Yup. Some people just don't think out the meanings of the words
> they use. Like the folks who say "native American" to mean
> "American Indian".
Would you care to expand on that?
Ken Holmes
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b1111de...@news.saix.net...
Got that right Steve ! But a click on Mugabes biography (also listed as an
African American), deals pretty harshly with him which is a surprise.
Martin Ambuhl
Some people seem to think that I am not a "native" American, even though
I and my ancestors for 3 generations on one side and 10 on the other were born
here. We are as native as they come.
Moira de Swardt
Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> The following are listed as "African-American Men of History"
> Thabo Mbeki
> Paul Kruger
> Nelson Mandela
> Milton Obote
> http://www.essortment.com/in/History.People/index.htm
> Looks like someone should brush up on their geography a bit.
Well, they probably think that these people *should* be American.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Matti Lamprhey
> "Steve MacGregor" <stevema...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>
> > Yup. Some people just don't think out the meanings of the words
> > they use. Like the folks who say "native American" to mean
> > "American Indian".
>
> Would you care to expand on that?
ATASTTB
Matti
Andy Averill
> The following are listed as "African-American Men of History"
>
> Thabo Mbeki
> Paul Kruger
> Nelson Mandela
> Milton Obote
>
I have also heard that black people from the West Indies who are living in
the US don't like to be called African-American, but I'm not quite sure why.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jake
Martin Ambuhl wrote:
Actually the proper designation for people like you and me is "native-born
American", as opposed to "Native American", which is reserved to those whose
primary ancestry here predates Columbus. It's a small concession to make for past
injustices. They certainly aren't "Indians" (natives of India).
Jitze Couperus
wrote:
>The following are listed as "African-American Men of History"
>
>Thabo Mbeki
>Paul Kruger
>Nelson Mandela
>Milton Obote
>
>http://www.essortment.com/in/History.People/index.htm
>
>Looks like someone should brush up on their geography a bit.
>
I wonder what was behind this weirdness - is it because the
writer/creator/editor of the site mentally equated "African-
American" with blackness and was in fact trying to list
famous black men? If so - Paul Kruger is no doubt
spinning in his grave... and why the notable absence
of people like Nkrumah, Kenyattta, Lumumba, Tschombe,
Nyerere et al?
(obTrivia - Sir Apollo Kagwa - lost in the maelstrom of history,
or even Freddy Mutesa)
Or did they really think Mbeki, Kruger, Mandela and Obote
were Americans?
Jitze
Robert Lieblich
>
> "Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3b1111de...@news.saix.net...
> > The following are listed as "African-American Men of History"
> >
> > Thabo Mbeki
> > Paul Kruger
> > Nelson Mandela
> > Milton Obote
> >
>
> I have also heard that black people from the West Indies who are living in
> the US don't like to be called African-American, but I'm not quite sure why.
For the same reason that I trace my ancestry to Austria and Poland
and not to Israel (or eastern Russia -- the Khazars).
AFAIC, Colin Powell is a Jamaican-American. I suspect he'd say the
same if the PC Police hadn't made that impractical.
Steve MacGregor
> Would you care to expand on that?
Sure. I'm a native American, but not of American Indian ancestry.
All it takes to be a native XXXX-ian is to be born in XXXX. That's
what the "nat-" in "native" means: "born".
Those who call Indians "native Americans" intending to leave out
all of us non-Indian natives should use a more appropriate term,
such as "aboriginal Americans" or "indigenous Americans".
Steve MacGregor
> Some people seem to think that I am not a "native"
> American, even though I and my ancestors for 3 generations
> on one side and 10 on the other were born here. We are as
> native as they come.
Amen, brother!
Steve MacGregor
<matti-...@totally-official.com> =====
> ATASTTB
Would you care to unpack that into English words for us?
Steve MacGregor
> I have also heard that black people from the West Indies
> who are living in the US don't like to be called
> African-American, but I'm not quite sure why.
Maybe for the same reason that I, being of Scottish and Swedish
ancestry, don't like being called an "anglo".
Steve MacGregor
> Actually the proper designation for people like you and me is
> "native-born American", as opposed to "Native American", ...
Isn't "native-born" rather redundant? How can I be born here
without being a native?
Benjamin Lukoff
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2001 16:04:37 GMT, haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes)
> wrote:
>
> >The following are listed as "African-American Men of History"
> >
> >Thabo Mbeki
> >Paul Kruger
> >Nelson Mandela
> >Milton Obote
>
> writer/creator/editor of the site mentally equated "African-
> American" with blackness and was in fact trying to list
> famous black men? If so - Paul Kruger is no doubt
> spinning in his grave... and why the notable absence
> of people like Nkrumah, Kenyattta, Lumumba, Tschombe,
> Nyerere et al?
> were Americans?
I'm sure whoever put the site together had been taught
"African-American" as a euphemism for "black" and didn't bother to think
of what it really meant.
Now, for those who don't like "black", what are you supposed to call
people like Nelson Mandela?
Robert E. Lewis
Steve MacGregor <stevema...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
I think "aboriginal Americans" is appropriate. Or perhaps "pedestrian
immigrants."
Have the aboriginal inhabitants of Canada appropriated the title "Native
Canadians"?
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> Now, for those who don't like "black", what are you supposed
> to call people like Nelson Mandela?
a) black (South) African
b) Negro
c) kaffir (the S.Afr. equivalent of U.S. "nigger")
d) swarte (Afrikaans, lit. "black one")
e) neger (Afrikaans, lit. "Negro")
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
M A L E D I C T A
P.O. Box 14123
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/
Raymond S. Wise
[snip]
>
> Actually the proper designation for people like you and me is "native-born
> American", as opposed to "Native American", which is reserved to those whose
> primary ancestry here predates Columbus. It's a small concession to make for past
> injustices. They certainly aren't "Indians" (natives of India).
They are not "Indians" (natives of India), but they are _Indians_
(natives of the New World). A word's etymology, while interesting,
does not represent its "true meaning."
You are aware, perhaps, that many Native Americans do not care much
for _Native American_ and prefer to call themselves _Indian._
In racial and ethnic terminology here in America, there are few
completely noncontroversial usages: some Americans call themselves
"Italian," some "Italian-American," some "black" (or "Black"), some
"African-Americans." Some Americans call themselves "white" (or
"White"), some "Caucasian." Some Eskimos call themselves "Inuit," some
Eskimos object to "Inuit" because they consider it to refer to
different tribe than their own. As I said, a word's etymology does not
represent its true meaning--Inuit may indeed some day become _the_
word for describing American Eskimos--but it is a factor in the
real-world question of whether a new proposal gains wide acceptance.
In fact, the etymologies of words also figure in the real-world
question of whether an old usage becomes no longer acceptable. But
this is true of false etymologies as well as true ones.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
Charles Riggs
wrote:
How can you call Indians "Native Americans" when they come from Asia
and settled in a land that the white man later named America?
Injustices? Who was it who killed off the first settlers in the New
World? When a civilised people clash with an uncivilised people, what
happened was exactly what was to be expected.
Charles Riggs
Jake
Charles Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2001 15:16:50 -0700, Jake <jam...@funtvSPAM.com>
> wrote:
> >Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> >> Peter P wrote:
> >> > "Steve MacGregor" <stevema...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > > Yup. Some people just don't think out the meanings of the words
> >> > > they use. Like the folks who say "native American" to mean
> >> > > "American Indian".
> >> >
> >> > Would you care to expand on that?
> >>
> >> Some people seem to think that I am not a "native" American, even though
> >> I and my ancestors for 3 generations on one side and 10 on the other were born
> >> here. We are as native as they come.
> >
> >Actually the proper designation for people like you and me is "native-born
> >American", as opposed to "Native American", which is reserved to those whose
> >primary ancestry here predates Columbus. It's a small concession to make for past
> >injustices. They certainly aren't "Indians" (natives of India).
> >
> >
> How can you call Indians "Native Americans" when they come from Asia
> and settled in a land that the white man later named America?
Well they're not "Indians" because they're not from India. That should be obvious.
Since we're speaking English and "America" is the accepted English name for this
continent., why not call them "Americans", just like everybody else living here?
Finally, the fact that their way distant ancestors came from Asia is irrelevant. They
were here FIRST and they were here FAR LONGER than anybody else. Hence they are
"Native Americans". This isn't rocket science, ya know.
> Injustices? Who was it who killed off the first settlers in the New
> World?
That would be Columbus and his thugs decimating the natives of "Hispania".
> When a civilised people clash with an uncivilised people, what
> happened was exactly what was to be expected.
Yes, from the point of view of the 'civilized' savages raping, pillaging, and
plundering the innocent primitives minding their own business in their own land.
What's done is done, but this ostrich attitude of not facing the true history of this
country is just plain despicable.
Gene Wirchenko
No, the term up here is "First Nations people". I think it's
silly. What would you call a bunch of anarchist Indians?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Gene Wirchenko
>>===== Original Message From Jake <jam...@funtvSPAM.com> =====
>
>> Actually the proper designation for people like you and me is
>> "native-born American", as opposed to "Native American", ...
>
>Isn't "native-born" rather redundant? How can I be born here
>without being a native?
You can be a native without being born "here". "native" can also
mean longtime resident.
Benjamin Lukoff
>
> Benjamin Lukoff wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Now, for those who don't like "black", what are you supposed
> > to call people like Nelson Mandela?
>
> a) black (South) African
> b) Negro
> c) kaffir (the S.Afr. equivalent of U.S. "nigger")
> d) swarte (Afrikaans, lit. "black one")
> e) neger (Afrikaans, lit. "Negro")
What I meant by "people like Nelson Mandela" is not "black South
Africans" but "blacks not from America". What is the PC term for such
people? Just curious.
Mary MacTavish
<l=u=k=o_b_e_@y+a+h-o-o-.-c=o=m> said:
>What I meant by "people like Nelson Mandela" is not "black South
>Africans" but "blacks not from America". What is the PC term for such
>people? Just curious.
They all have to have the same label as one another?
`
Mary MacTavish
http://www.prado.com/~iris
"I like you guys who want smaller government - you
know, just small enough to fit in our bedrooms."
Josh to Congressman Skinner, The West Wing
Richard Fontana
> Steve MacGregor <stevema...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>
> >>===== Original Message From Jake <jam...@funtvSPAM.com> =====
> >
> >> Actually the proper designation for people like you and me is
> >> "native-born American", as opposed to "Native American", ...
> >
> >Isn't "native-born" rather redundant? How can I be born here
> >without being a native?
>
> You can be a native without being born "here". "native" can also
> mean longtime resident.
Huh?
Well, I'm glad; now when I say "native speaker" I don't have to say "and
Skitt too" anymore.
Peter Moylan
>What I meant by "people like Nelson Mandela" is not "black South
>Africans" but "blacks not from America". What is the PC term for such
>people? Just curious.
Once we've figured that one out, what is the PC term for "whites not
from Venezuela?"
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
See http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au for OS/2 information and software
Shahin Malekpour
"Steve MacGregor" <stevema...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3B44...@MailAndNews.com...
Last week I heard "First Nation" being talked about (glibly)
on a BBC2 Radio early morning banters.
Aside from the fact that a term as broadcast above would
probably remain "glib", the characterisation of these peoples
into a single block, albeit composed of two words (the last
oft being ye olde Vespucci's donation) seems to ignore not
only their diversity, but the trail blazing pioneering spirit with
which they infused the later settlers of mostly European stock.
Except "native Americans" (with attendant problems justly
raised in this thread), all other terms mentioned give
different problems, the worse, promotion of ghetto culture.
Steering away from patronising terms like the "First Nation"
(they never saw themselves as such), one solution may be
a recognition of earlier "native"'s inherent diversity, as well
as their vital pioneering spirits to which Americans owe much
of their characteristics; albeit subliminally. Traits such as
self-reliance and laconism to name two, in better bred ones.
Most of the terms thus far, it appears, have been donations
by others, chiefly the later settlers, towards which these people
feel little sense of ownership. Thus, largely remaining aloof
and peripheral, which incidentally, may be an aspect of these
earlier native's collective psyche.
I understand that this is a complex brief and would probably
agree with Rey should he say: "What's wrong with Injins?!" :)
It reminds me of Jimmy McFitter's (sp) Adventures; a 60's/70's
TV serial that was screened in Iran, the country in which I was
raised. Needless to say that the serial was dubbed in Persian,
in which the pre-pubescent child star Russell Whachamacallim,
(Or was it Whachamacallim Russell?) who was cute and very
"American kid" in looks and character (shame about his career
as an adult!:/) would run out of the woods and holler: "Injins!
INJINS!" which of course translated for the Persian audience
would be: "Red skins! RED SKINS"!
Because translated "Indian" into Persian becomes "Hindi"
which would have been totally ridiculous, since good and
peaceful Indians (Hindis) live happily next door to Iranians! :)
Shahin
Oliver Gassner
>When a civilised people clash with an uncivilised people, what
>happened was exactly what was to be expected.
So the civilized natives killed the uncivilized colonists?
What would have happened if some hundred 'native Americans'
(pre-columbian americans?) had arrives, say, in Le Havre and
claimed Normandy for their 'chief'?
OG
--
Die Frage muss eher lauten: Tolerieren Leute, die denken, alle
Trekker seien tolerant, die Tatsache, dass diese Aussage recht
intolerant gegenueber den Intoleranten unter den Fans ist?
> -> Garantiert Trek-Freie Zone: http://www.carpe.com/lit/
Matti Lamprhey
> >===== Original Message From "Matti Lamprhey"
>
>
> Would you care to unpack that into English words for us?
It's one of an occasionally-posted pair, the other meaning "as the bishop
said to the actress". Amaze your friends by converting every utterance
into a double-entendre! Breaks the ice at parties.
Matti
Steve Hayes
I recently learnt from a genealogy ng that they are called "First nations".
Steve Hayes
http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius
Benjamin Lukoff
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2001 23:48:58 -0600, Benjamin Lukoff
> <l=u=k=o_b_e_@y+a+h-o-o-.-c=o=m> said:
>
> >What I meant by "people like Nelson Mandela" is not "black South
> >Africans" but "blacks not from America". What is the PC term for such
> >people? Just curious.
>
> They all have to have the same label as one another?
*I* don't think so, but I know a lot of people think there's something
wrong with "black". I am curious to know what the PC types think is a
good alternative, not that I would use that alternative.
Padraig Breathnach
>How can you call Indians "Native Americans" when they come from Asia
>and settled in a land that the white man later named America?
>Injustices? Who was it who killed off the first settlers in the New
>World? When a civilised people clash with an uncivilised people, what
>happened was exactly what was to be expected.
>
This is sociology learned from life, I take it.
Try seeing it as a civilisation with superior military technology
clashes with another which has less.
PB
Padraig Breathnach
>By that reasoning we should all call ourselves Africans, since the
>African origins of the human race are currently the best supported
>theory. Everywhere else the human race is an immigrant.
>
Why not just use the established term: people?
And rather than focusing attention on genetic divergences which took
place about 50,000 years ago, look to the common origin about
2,500.000.000 years ago?
Then if I don't like you, you will know that it is personal between
you and me, not between my ancestry and yours.
PB
Shahin Malekpour
"Shahin Malekpour" <shahin.m...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:wNnQ6.7724$WD.19...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
It occured to me that my statement above could conceivably
be read by some readers in an unintended way.
My reference to "Rey"'s hypothetical response (not that
he would necessarily say such a thing) is being direct
and clear in communication, without resorting to PC talk,
which can often raise further objections and problems.
Personally, as a "non-native" English speaker, I feel quite
comfortable using the term "Red skin people" to mean
"Native Americans" collectively.
The way that term has been introduced to me in my upbringing,
conjures up the idea of a particular people found on a relatively
newly discovered land-mass by European explorers. These
people were brave, free spirited, disciplined, dynamic ... with
exceptional ingenuity and sensibilities. I see nothing derogatory
with "Red skin people" as a collective term; perhaps specifying
Americans Red skins, as distinct from Canadian Red skins.
I really never had to think too hard about it until today! :/
Mike Barnes
wrote
>Now, for those who don't like "black", what are you supposed to call
>people like Nelson Mandela?
I don't think there are any people quite like Nelson Mandela. But "Sir"
would be my choice.
--
Mike Barnes
Stipan
news:9es5mv$dtq$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu...
> Jitze Couperus wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 27 May 2001 16:04:37 GMT, haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes)
> > wrote:
snip
> I'm sure whoever put the site together had been taught
> "African-American" as a euphemism for "black" and didn't bother to think
> of what it really meant.
>
I think they were just sloppy.
If you actually read about Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki there you won't
find anything about them being African Americans.
I saw quite a few sites that are made to boost African American pride.
Nelson Mandela is always present.
Celebrating African-American History!
Know Your History
Know Your People
http://www.imdiversity.com/Article_Detail.asp?Article_ID=2555
Also note the parallel use of the word black and African American.
Black Cowboys will always be just that even if the word African American
becomes something natural.
I say natural because I can still feel politics and certain artificiality
behind this term.
Black Arts Movement will also never change.
> Now, for those who don't like "black", what are you supposed to call
> people like Nelson Mandela?
I would personally call him black and I wouldn't be disrespectful or feel
any less admiration for the man.
Other words one can pick from are African, South African etc. There are
white South Africans but this doesn't mean we cannot call him South African
too. Humans originated in Africa but I don't see that as a valid argument
for not calling him African or for not using the term African American in
general. It's silly and a little provoking. But if you want to split hairs
you might also argue that we are all Ocean People and claim brotherhood with
amoebas.
A problem arises if you want to classify blacks from Africa and African
Americans together. You can only call them black.
I don't think calling someone black is offensive but if someone feels very
strongly about this word I don't have a problem with using the other term.
A question to AUE:
How many of you use black when they're "safe" and African American when they
might get into trouble?
Many Arab Americans are from Africa but you can't call them African
Americans.
Then again Mexicans are Americans only if they are US citizens.
There is no way of escaping from the fact that when you say America you
usually mean the good old USA.
Now, if Americans could claim the name of a whole continent I don't think
that black Americans have any less right to do the same.
Arabs from Africa have stronger ties with other Arab countries and Mexicans
naturally with other Latin American countries.
Another question.
African-Canadian or African Canadian?
http://afroamlit.about.com/arts/afroamlit/cs/canadianauthors/
The same
http://ilearn.senecac.on.ca/homepage/Patricia.Clark/217www.htm
http://www.cyberteddy-online.com/africancanadian.html
Shouldn't there be some consistency? At least on the same page?
Stipan
Mike Lyle
Wirchenko wrote:
>
>Steve MacGregor <stevema...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>
>>>===== Original Message From Jake <jam...@funtvSPAM.com> =====
>>
>>> Actually the proper designation for people like you and me is
>>> "native-born American", as opposed to "Native American", ...
>>
>>Isn't "native-born" rather redundant? How can I be born here
>>without being a native?
>
> You can be a native without being born "here". "native" can also
>mean longtime resident.
>
Only on Humpty-Dumpty principles. What's the _point_ of the word on your
interpretation? "My place of birth is Duluth, Minnesota, but I was born in
Paris, France.".."Huh?".."I said, I'm a native of Duluth, but I'm a native of
Paris.".."Eh?".."Let me put it another way: though I was born in Paris, I'm a
native of Minnesota.".."What?".."Geez, don't you understand English? I tell you,
I was born in the United States, but I'm a native of France.".."Nurse, give him
a shot: the boy's insane!"
Mike.
Tsippi Jelingold
news:3B44...@MailAndNews.com...
> >===== Original Message From "Peter P" <rin...@blueyonder.co.uk>
=====
>
> > Would you care to expand on that?
>
> Sure. I'm a native American, but not of American Indian ancestry.
> All it takes to be a native XXXX-ian is to be born in XXXX. That's
> what the "nat-" in "native" means: "born".
>
> Those who call Indians "native Americans" intending to leave out
> all of us non-Indian natives should use a more appropriate term,
> such as "aboriginal Americans" or "indigenous Americans".
Isn't "indigenous" the same as "native"? Babylon uses each one as
explanation for the other.
Regards, Tsippi Jelingold
--
This sig is under construction, please come back later.
I apologize for the inconvenience.
J. W. Love
Asia is irrelevant. They were here FIRST>>
Alas, their ancestors may not have been here first. Archaeological discoveries
have made those ancestors' priority problematic. The drive to suppress
potential evidence isn't helping scientists determine the truth.
<<they were here FAR LONGER than anybody else.>>
We don't know that for certain. In particular, in the great sweep of human
prehistory in the New World, the Canadian "first nations" may have been among
the _last_-arriving nations. Almost certainly the ancestors of southern South
American peoples, and possibly the ancestors of some Central & North American
and Caribbean peoples, preceded their ancestors in the New World.
<<That would be Columbus and his thugs decimating the natives of "Hispania".>>
In some places, unfortunately, it was worse than decimating, but much of the
blame should go to lethal microbes, which the invaders didn't know they were
carrying.
Ross Howard
wrote:
>
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>> Injustices? Who was it who killed off the first settlers in the New
>> World?
>
>That would be Columbus and his thugs decimating the natives of "Hispania".
Huh? Wouldn't that have been biting the hand that fed them? Or are you
perhaps referring to *La Española*, the island now shared by the
Dominican Republic and Haiti? (*Hispania* was the Romans' name for
Spain.)
Ross Howard
Richard Fontana
> I don't think calling someone black is offensive but if someone feels very
> strongly about this word I don't have a problem with using the other term.
>
> A question to AUE:
> How many of you use black when they're "safe" and African American when they
> might get into trouble?
Who's "they"? What are you talking about?
I think there's some basic misunderstanding going on here. It's not that
"black" has become politically incorrect, let alone offensive. It's more
that for at least some purposes "African-American" is regarded as a more
dignified or respectful term. It doesn't fully replace
"black". "Black" is still used by the most politically correct
speakers. Yes, I think to some degree what's going on is that "black" and
"white" are seen increasingly as crude descriptive terms, but all you have
to do is read a newspaper or watch TV to realize that they are still very
much current. There is a difference in how they're used, though, but it
would be difficult to explain this.
> Many Arab Americans are from Africa but you can't call them African
> Americans.
There was a guy I went to college with who was an Arab-American, but
he was (by parentage or birth, I can't remember) from
one of the Middle Eastern Arab countries. He falsely claimed to people to
be from the Sudan because, for sort of complicated reasons of political
and social identity, he wanted to be considered an African-American.
Rowan Dingle
>Benjamin Lukoff <l=u=k=o_b_e_@y+a+h-o-o-.-c=o=m> wrote:
>>What I meant by "people like Nelson Mandela" is not "black South
>>Africans" but "blacks not from America". What is the PC term for such
>>people? Just curious.
>
>Once we've figured that one out, what is the PC term for "whites not
>from Venezuela?"
Non-caracasians.
--
Rowan Dingle
Stipan
"Richard Fontana" <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.01052...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
> On Mon, 28 May 2001, Stipan wrote:
>
> > I don't think calling someone black is offensive but if someone feels
very
> > strongly about this word I don't have a problem with using the other
term.
> >
> > A question to AUE:
> > How many of you use black when they're "safe" and African American when
they
> > might get into trouble?
>
> Who's "they"?
... you're safe
What are you talking about?
I started the sentence in another way and then changed my mind. I forgot to
change that word.
Sorry.
I didn't say that "black" was politically incorrect but it seems to be
perceived by more and more people as such.
Stipan
Fabian
"Benjamin Lukoff" <l=u=k=o_b_e_@y+a+h-o-o-.-c=o=m> wrote in message
I'd go for just plain 'African', if I was forced to not use 'Black'.
Assuming that was indeed where said individual hails from.
--
--
Fabian
And so it was that he resumed his drive into mediocrity with a happy heart,
secure in the knowledge that he was so pathetic that his challenge had been
refused by a person known to never refuse a challenge on the grounds that he
was a loony. Indeed, he had been effectively defeated without even being
touched at all. And better, he'd been defeated by a girl.
Robert E. Lewis
Jake <jaNO...@funPAMtv.com> wrote in message
news:3B11E03F...@funPAMtv.com...
Being in a place "far longer" than other people doesn't show up as any of
the definitions of "native" in my M-W. The word for that is "aboriginal."
The exclusionary view of calling one group of settlers of the American
continent "Native" and regarding the rest as interlopers really doesn't seem
to me very different from some of those middle-era immigrants' descendents
who want to exclude the next wave of immigrants from America.
> > Injustices? Who was it who killed off the first settlers in the New
> > World?
>
> That would be Columbus and his thugs decimating the natives of "Hispania".
(I'll leave aside the issue of the name of the island, and the evidence that
there may have been people here before the ancestors of the Indians wandered
in.) Columbus had the way paved for him by the Carib Ind... aborig... er,
Tribe, who were spreading out from their aboriginal home in northern South
America and treating the islanders they found with something less than the
storybook respect we're taught that everyone in the Americas had before the
wicked Europeans arrived.
> > When a civilised people clash with an uncivilised people, what
> > happened was exactly what was to be expected.
>
> Yes, from the point of view of the 'civilized' savages raping, pillaging,
and
> plundering the innocent primitives minding their own business in their own
land.
> What's done is done, but this ostrich attitude of not facing the true
history of this
> country is just plain despicable.
So is painting a sugar-coated portrait of the "innocent people" Columbus
encountered. Ah well, at least the Caribs got in a couple of good
counterstrikes at the Europeans: virulent syphilis and tobacco.
Don Aitken
The two big minority groups in the UK are usually called
Afro-Carribean and Asian (or British Asian). "Asian" here means
exclusively South Asian and does not include Chinese etc. If you want
to cover both groups the usual term is Black British, although some
Asians do not like it. OTOH many Afro-Carribean people would regard a
deliberate refusal to describe them as Black as *highly* insulting.
While the general principle of describing people as they prefer to be
described is a good one to follow, there is absolutely no point in
trying to lay down rigid rules about things like this - especially as
it is certain that the "approved" terms will continue to change every
few years.
--
Don Aitken
lazyboy
>You can be a native without being born "here".
>"native" can also mean longtime resident.
------------------
Native (Adj.)
------------------
[ME natif, fr. MF, fr. L nativus, fr. natus, pp. of nasci to be born -- More
at NATION] (14c)
1: INBORN, INNATE <~ talents>
2: belonging to a particular place of birth <~ to Wisconsin>
3 archaic: closely related
4: belonging to or associated with one by birth
5: NATURAL, NORMAL
6 a: grown, produced, or originating in a particular place or in the
vicinity: LOCAL
b: living or growing naturally in a particular region: INDIGENOUS
7: SIMPLE, UNAFFECTED
8 a: constituting the original substance or source
b: found in nature esp. in an unadulterated form <mining ~ silver>
9 chiefly Austral: having a usu. superficial resemblance to a specified
English plant or animal
Syn NATIVE, INDIGENOUS, ENDEMIC, ABORIGINAL mean belonging to a locality.
NATIVE implies birth or origin in a place or region and may suggest
compatibility with it <native tribal customs>.
INDIGENOUS applies to species or races and adds to NATIVE the implication of
not having been introduced from elsewhere <maize is indigenous to America>.
ENDEMIC implies being peculiar to a region <edelweiss is endemic in the
Alps>.
ABORIGINAL implies having no known race preceding in occupancy of the region
<the aboriginal peoples of Australia>.
-------------
Native (Noun) (1535)
-------------
1: one born or reared in a particular place
2 a: an original or indigenous inhabitant
b: something indigenous to a particular locality
3: a local resident; esp: a person who has always lived in a place as
distinguished from a visitor or a temporary resident
----------------------
Native American (1925)
----------------------
AMERICAN INDIAN -- Native American (adj)
[Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition]
Ralph Jones
>
> "Steve MacGregor" <stevema...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
>
> > Yup. Some people just don't think out the meanings of the words
> > they use. Like the folks who say "native American" to mean
> > "American Indian".
>
> Would you care to expand on that?
I think he's confusing "native American" with "Native American".
--
Majority score
Scalia trumps the voters
Bush wins five to four.
- rmj http://www.hal-pc.org/~rmjones
R J Valentine
...
} I didn't say that "black" was politically incorrect but it seems to be
} perceived by more and more people as such.
In the sense that *any* mention of someone's ethnic heritage or other
irrelevant characteristic is likely to be startling in societies where
roles aren't defined by such things. In my last seventeen conversations
with people of various backgrounds and appearances, such things haven't
come up once. If someone behind me started talking in those terms, I'd
have to turn around to see if Rey was back in town.
Now if someone started to use a particular term for the group they're
lumping me into, I'd try to make sure they knew I preferred a different
term, so they'd be sure to be conscious of when they're using it, and I'd
change it every time they got too comfortable with it.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Jake
Ross Howard wrote:
Hispaniola.
J. W. Love
American".>>
By rule 7.32, the 13th edition of the _Chicago Manual of Style_ didn't
recognize the latter form. It specified: "native American (i.e., American
Indian)."
FYI, other similar terms it lowercased were: _aborigine, black, bushman,
colored, highlander, pygmy, red man, redneck,_ and _white._ It also lowercased
the adjectives _caucasoid, mongoloid,_ and _negroid,_ though it capitalized the
nouns _Caucasian, Mongol,_ and _Negro._
Has the 14th (current) edition changed any of this?
Skitt
> On Mon, 28 May 2001, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
> > Steve MacGregor <stevema...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>===== Original Message From Jake <jam...@funtvSPAM.com> =====
> > >
> > >
> > >Isn't "native-born" rather redundant? How can I be born here
> > >without being a native?
> >
> > mean longtime resident.
>
> Well, I'm glad; now when I say "native speaker" I don't have to say "and
> Skitt too" anymore.
Ah, I just went native! Cool!
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Jake
"Robert E. Lewis" wrote:
Shows up in my dictionary, since 'aboriginal' is a synonym for 'native'.
> The exclusionary view of calling one group of settlers of the American
> continent "Native" and regarding the rest as interlopers really doesn't seem
> to me very different from some of those middle-era immigrants' descendents
> who want to exclude the next wave of immigrants from America.
Got a problem with 'native-born'? I don't. And the next wave should be
restricted if failure to fully assimilate previous waves causes societal
problems. Or are you one of those idealists who thinks the USA can absorb the
whole freaking planet?
> > > Injustices? Who was it who killed off the first settlers in the New
> > > World?
> >
> > That would be Columbus and his thugs decimating the natives of "Hispania".
My bad. Hispaniola.
> (I'll leave aside the issue of the name of the island, and the evidence that
> there may have been people here before the ancestors of the Indians wandered
> in.) Columbus had the way paved for him by the Carib Ind... aborig... er,
> Tribe, who were spreading out from their aboriginal home in northern South
> America and treating the islanders they found with something less than the
> storybook respect we're taught that everyone in the Americas had before the
> wicked Europeans arrived.
That doesn't answer the question asked about interaction with 'Old World'
newcomers.
> > > When a civilised people clash with an uncivilised people, what
> > > happened was exactly what was to be expected.
> >
> > Yes, from the point of view of the 'civilized' savages raping, pillaging,
> and
> > plundering the innocent primitives minding their own business in their own
> land.
> > What's done is done, but this ostrich attitude of not facing the true
> history of this
> > country is just plain despicable.
>
> So is painting a sugar-coated portrait of the "innocent people" Columbus
> encountered.
What about innocent tribes encountered by other Europeans? Or are you trying to
say only Columbus was guilty of injustices? I certainly wasn't.
As far as 'innocence' goes, even the war-like tribes weren't guilty of invading
and colonizing Europe. Pretty simple math.
STEAM GENE
people? Just curious.
>>
has lived in South Africa for three hundred years and migrates to the U.S.?
Gene
ABV61-1043.001.HCB
<A HREF="http://www.tckworld.com/opfoot">http://www.tckworld.com/opfoot</A>
Robert E. Lewis
Jake <jaNO...@funPAMtv.com> wrote in message
Really? Mine (quite old - M-W Webster's Ninth Collegiate) goes into some
detail explaining that aboriginal, indigenous, and endemic are *not* quite
synonymous, and the slight difference - the difference being that
"aboriginal" means "having no known race preceding in occupancy of the
region," while "native" means having been born in a place, the former
accurately describing "American Indians," and the latter describing equally
well hundreds of millions of other people.
> > The exclusionary view of calling one group of settlers of the American
> > continent "Native" and regarding the rest as interlopers really doesn't
seem
> > to me very different from some of those middle-era immigrants'
descendents
> > who want to exclude the next wave of immigrants from America.
>
> Got a problem with 'native-born'? I don't.
I do. It's silly and redundant, as someone else pointed out.
> And the next wave should be
> restricted if failure to fully assimilate previous waves causes societal
> problems. Or are you one of those idealists who thinks the USA can absorb
the
> whole freaking planet?
That is not a logical conclusion for you to make from what I said.
> > > > Injustices? Who was it who killed off the first settlers in the New
> > > > World?
> > >
> > > That would be Columbus and his thugs decimating the natives of
"Hispania".
>
> My bad. Hispaniola.
>
> > (I'll leave aside the issue of the name of the island, and the evidence
that
> > there may have been people here before the ancestors of the Indians
wandered
> > in.) Columbus had the way paved for him by the Carib Ind... aborig...
er,
> > Tribe, who were spreading out from their aboriginal home in northern
South
> > America and treating the islanders they found with something less than
the
> > storybook respect we're taught that everyone in the Americas had before
the
> > wicked Europeans arrived.
>
> That doesn't answer the question asked about interaction with 'Old World'
> newcomers.
No, but it does make the European-bashing clear for what it is - a double
standard of bashing the Europeans for behaving as any other people would
have behaved (and did, when they had the chance).
> > > > When a civilised people clash with an uncivilised people, what
> > > > happened was exactly what was to be expected.
> > >
> > > Yes, from the point of view of the 'civilized' savages raping,
pillaging,
> > and
> > > plundering the innocent primitives minding their own business in their
own
> > land.
> > > What's done is done, but this ostrich attitude of not facing the true
> > history of this
> > > country is just plain despicable.
> >
> > So is painting a sugar-coated portrait of the "innocent people" Columbus
> > encountered.
>
> What about innocent tribes encountered by other Europeans? Or are you
trying to
> say only Columbus was guilty of injustices? I certainly wasn't.
No, you certainly weren't. I'll just respond with, "What about inncoent
tribe encountered by other aboriginal Americans?" Bad things happened in
history - humans are oftentimes cruel, and were moreso five hundred years
ago. But you're presenting it as a case of Bad Europeans encountering
Innocent Natives, and that's just one-sided and inaccurate
> As far as 'innocence' goes, even the war-like tribes weren't guilty of
invading
> and colonizing Europe. Pretty simple math.
Pretty simplistic. They didn't invade Europe because they weren't *able* to
invade Europe. It's ridiculous to paint them as "innocent" because they
didn't make war on places they didn't know existed and couldn't get to.
Using that standard, I would like to nominate all of European humanity for
the Nobel Peace Prize for refraining from invading and colonizing the Planet
Schnicklefritz. Pretty simple math.
Raymond S. Wise
From
http://www1.umn.edu/irp/publications/racialprofiling.html
[quote]
A Resource Guide on Racial Profiling Data Collection Systems,
published by the U.S. Department of Justice, defines racial profiling
as:
[here they quote from the Justice Department document]
any police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity or
national origin rather than the behavior of an individual or
information that leads the police to a particular individual who has
been identified as being, or having been, engaged in criminal
activity.[1]
[end of quote from the Justice Department document]
In the context of traffic stops by police officers, racial profiling
should be defined broadly as encompassing officers’ _use of race
or ethnicity as a factor_ in deciding to stop, question, search or
arrest someone.
[end quote]
If you belief that racial profiling is a problem--and I suspect that
you do--how can it possibly be dealt with without first identifying
people by a racial or ethnic designation? In fact, to begin to solve
the problem it has been proposed that when police officers stop
someone for whatever reason, they write down the race that they
believe the person to be. The goal is to figure out a way of
preventing officers in the future from considering someone a criminal
suspect simply because of that person's ethnicity.
Can you propose some other method to prevent racial profiling? If so,
how could you know that the method, once implemented, had actually
worked? If you refuse to identify people by their race, you could not
know--it's a logical impossibility.
The problem with identifying a person by a racial or ethnic
classification is not that the identification itself is inherently
wrong, it is that we might fall into the trap of identifying a person
so labeled by a negative stereotype.
Besides, the history of "human races" (however we define that
expression) is part of the history of _Homo sapiens_ and is an
interesting aspect of the history of our species, involved as it is in
the dispersion of human over the globe. I suggest the book "Genes,
Peoples, and Languages" by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, New York: North
Point Press, (C) 2000.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
Benjamin Lukoff
>
> Peter P wrote:
> >
> > "Steve MacGregor" <stevema...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > Yup. Some people just don't think out the meanings of the words
> > > they use. Like the folks who say "native American" to mean
> > > "American Indian".
> >
> > Would you care to expand on that?
>
> I think he's confusing "native American" with "Native American".
You don't differentiate these in speech, though.
Simon R. Hughes
Write your own damn postings -- I wrote that one days ago!
For what it's worth, the converse is also true -- not only will people
refuse to allow you to opt out of the "in" collective-noun, but
sometimes they will refuse you entry beneath the banner that currently
serves their purposes.
In Norway people are often referred to as "av utenlandsk opprinnelse"
("of foreign origin") in relation to police enquiries. I own up
immediately: "it was me!" So far no one has taken me seriously, but
then, I have my "opprinnelse" in the wrong "utland".
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
Gene Wirchenko
>ge...@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) writes:
>
>> You can be a native without being born "here". "native" can also
>>mean longtime resident.
>
>Only as an error made by the ignorant, however.
I got that usage out of a dictionary.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Jake
"Robert E. Lewis" wrote:
It's a direct and easily understood analogy to 'foreign-born' so most people
have no problem grasping it. And what's silly is "American Indian", when the
people referred to clearly have nothing to do with India.
> > And the next wave should be
> > restricted if failure to fully assimilate previous waves causes societal
> > problems. Or are you one of those idealists who thinks the USA can absorb
> the
> > whole freaking planet?
>
> That is not a logical conclusion for you to make from what I said.
Sure it is.
> > > > > Injustices? Who was it who killed off the first settlers in the New
> > > > > World?
> > > >
> > > > That would be Columbus and his thugs decimating the natives of
> "Hispania".
> >
> > My bad. Hispaniola.
> >
> > > (I'll leave aside the issue of the name of the island, and the evidence
> that
> > > there may have been people here before the ancestors of the Indians
> wandered
> > > in.) Columbus had the way paved for him by the Carib Ind... aborig...
> er,
> > > Tribe, who were spreading out from their aboriginal home in northern
> South
> > > America and treating the islanders they found with something less than
> the
> > > storybook respect we're taught that everyone in the Americas had before
> the
> > > wicked Europeans arrived.
> >
> > That doesn't answer the question asked about interaction with 'Old World'
> > newcomers.
>
> No, but it does make the European-bashing clear for what it is - a double
> standard of bashing the Europeans for behaving as any other people would
> have behaved (and did, when they had the chance).
Yes let's all start judging people, not by their actions, but by declaring that
others would have done the same, given a chance. Boy, that ought to clear our
court dockets!
> > > > > When a civilised people clash with an uncivilised people, what
> > > > > happened was exactly what was to be expected.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, from the point of view of the 'civilized' savages raping,
> pillaging,
> > > and
> > > > plundering the innocent primitives minding their own business in their
> own
> > > land.
> > > > What's done is done, but this ostrich attitude of not facing the true
> > > history of this
> > > > country is just plain despicable.
> > >
> > > So is painting a sugar-coated portrait of the "innocent people" Columbus
> > > encountered.
> >
> > What about innocent tribes encountered by other Europeans? Or are you
> trying to
> > say only Columbus was guilty of injustices? I certainly wasn't.
>
> No, you certainly weren't. I'll just respond with, "What about inncoent
> tribe encountered by other aboriginal Americans?" Bad things happened in
> history - humans are oftentimes cruel, and were moreso five hundred years
> ago. But you're presenting it as a case of Bad Europeans encountering
> Innocent Natives, and that's just one-sided and inaccurate
Not by much.
> > As far as 'innocence' goes, even the war-like tribes weren't guilty of
> invading
> > and colonizing Europe. Pretty simple math.
>
> Pretty simplistic. They didn't invade Europe because they weren't *able* to
> invade Europe. It's ridiculous to paint them as "innocent" because they
> didn't make war on places they didn't know existed and couldn't get to.
> Using that standard, I would like to nominate all of European humanity for
> the Nobel Peace Prize for refraining from invading and colonizing the Planet
> Schnicklefritz. Pretty simple math.
Chauvinistic arrogance. The Mayans knew the world was round. The idea that they
had no way of speculating about other distant lands is just patronizing. The
Planet Schnicklefritz by contrast exists nowhere outside of your mind.
Besides you seem ready to condemn people by their intentions or desires. In THIS
country, we condemn people by their bad actions. The Native Americans are
innocent compared to their European invaders.
Steve Hayes
<l=u=k=o_b_e_@y+a+h-o-o-.-c=o=m> wrote:
>What I meant by "people like Nelson Mandela" is not "black South
>Africans" but "blacks not from America". What is the PC term for such
>people? Just curious.
The black outgroup of black Americans?
Steve Hayes
http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius
Steve Hayes
>>Isn't "native-born" rather redundant? How can I be born here
>>without being a native?
>
> You can be a native without being born "here". "native" can also
>mean longtime resident.
A born-again one?
Steve Hayes
http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius
Steve Hayes
<l=u=k=o_b_e_@y+a+h-o-o-.-c=o=m> wrote:
>I'm sure whoever put the site together had been taught
>"African-American" as a euphemism for "black" and didn't bother to think
>of what it really meant.
>
>Now, for those who don't like "black", what are you supposed to call
>people like Nelson Mandela?
A pensioner - it's what he calls himself.
Steve Hayes
http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>>When a civilised people clash with an uncivilised people, what
>>happened was exactly what was to be expected.
>
>So the civilized natives killed the uncivilized colonists?
>
>What would have happened if some hundred 'native Americans'
>(pre-columbian americans?) had arrives, say, in Le Havre and
>claimed Normandy for their 'chief'?
I fear their canoes would have tipped over many moons before they were
able to come ashore.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2001 15:16:50 -0700, Jake <jam...@funtvSPAM.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>> >> Peter P wrote:
>> >> > "Steve MacGregor" <stevema...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> > > Yup. Some people just don't think out the meanings of the words
>> >> > > they use. Like the folks who say "native American" to mean
>> >> > > "American Indian".
>> >> >
>> >> > Would you care to expand on that?
>> >>
>> >> Some people seem to think that I am not a "native" American, even though
>> >> I and my ancestors for 3 generations on one side and 10 on the other were born
>> >> here. We are as native as they come.
>> >
>> >Actually the proper designation for people like you and me is "native-born
>> >American", as opposed to "Native American", which is reserved to those whose
>> >primary ancestry here predates Columbus. It's a small concession to make for past
>> >injustices. They certainly aren't "Indians" (natives of India).
>> >
>> >
>> How can you call Indians "Native Americans" when they come from Asia
>> and settled in a land that the white man later named America?
>
>Well they're not "Indians" because they're not from India. That should be obvious.
Then why do most of them call themselves that? None of the Indians
I've ever known used the silly term "Native Americans". Never.
>Since we're speaking English and "America" is the accepted English name for this
>continent., why not call them "Americans", just like everybody else living here?
Works for me.
>Finally, the fact that their way distant ancestors came from Asia is irrelevant. They
>were here FIRST and they were here FAR LONGER than anybody else. Hence they are
>"Native Americans". This isn't rocket science, ya know.
Why should they not call themselves Asian-Americans, following the
example of Irish-Americans, Black-Americans, Italian-Americans, and
others?
>
>> Injustices? Who was it who killed off the first settlers in the New
>> World?
>
>That would be Columbus and his thugs decimating the natives of "Hispania".
After they turned on the fine man and his crew.
>> When a civilised people clash with an uncivilised people, what
>> happened was exactly what was to be expected.
>
>Yes, from the point of view of the 'civilized' savages raping, pillaging, and
>plundering the innocent primitives minding their own business in their own land.
>What's done is done, but this ostrich attitude of not facing the true history of this
>country is just plain despicable.
Looks like I got to you -- good. Self-inflated, hoity-toity little
twits like yourself deserve it.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Exactly. As usual, the ruthless barbarians, assisted by superior
>weapons, superior diseases, and stunningly hypocritical diplomacy,
>made mincemeat of the civilised people.
I notice however that you prefer to ensconce yourself among the
ruthless barbarians of Edinburgh University as opposed to the
innocent, civilized wilds of the American West with its cowboys and
Indians.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>>How can you call Indians "Native Americans" when they come from Asia
>>and settled in a land that the white man later named America?
>>Injustices? Who was it who killed off the first settlers in the New
>>World? When a civilised people clash with an uncivilised people, what
>>happened was exactly what was to be expected.
>>
>This is sociology learned from life, I take it.
>
>Try seeing it as a civilisation with superior military technology
>clashes with another which has less.
Along with being a civilization that had a written language, books,
cities, cathedrals, Bach, Isaac Newton, and far greater justification,
for these and any number of other reasons, for being the rulers
instead of the ruled. Things work out as they must; no-one said life
was fair.
Charles Riggs
Jake
Charles Riggs wrote in crayon:
> Jake wrote:
> >Charles Riggs wrote:
> >> Jake wrote:
> >> >Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> >> >> Peter P wrote:
> >> >> > Steve MacGregor wrote in message
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Yup. Some people just don't think out the meanings of the words
> >> >> > > they use. Like the folks who say "native American" to mean
> >> >> > > "American Indian".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Would you care to expand on that?
> >> >>
> >> >> Some people seem to think that I am not a "native" American, even though
> >> >> I and my ancestors for 3 generations on one side and 10 on the other were born
> >> >> here. We are as native as they come.
> >> >
> >> >Actually the proper designation for people like you and me is "native-born
> >> >American", as opposed to "Native American", which is reserved to those whose
> >> >primary ancestry here predates Columbus. It's a small concession to make for past
> >> >injustices. They certainly aren't "Indians" (natives of India).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> How can you call Indians "Native Americans" when they come from Asia
> >> and settled in a land that the white man later named America?
> >
> >Well they're not "Indians" because they're not from India. That should be obvious.
>
> Then why do most of them call themselves that?
Habit? Institutionalization? The need to fit in with the rest of the stupid Americans?
> None of the Indians
> I've ever known used the silly term "Native Americans". Never.
Glad to say I know some who use it.
> >Since we're speaking English and "America" is the accepted English name for this
> >continent., why not call them "Americans", just like everybody else living here?
>
> Works for me.
>
> >Finally, the fact that their way distant ancestors came from Asia is irrelevant. They
> >were here FIRST and they were here FAR LONGER than anybody else. Hence they are
> >"Native Americans". This isn't rocket science, ya know.
>
> Why should they not call themselves Asian-Americans, following the
> example of Irish-Americans, Black-Americans, Italian-Americans, and
> others?
It's been over 20,000 years. By your logic, we should all call ourselves African
Americans, since if you go back far enough, you'll find African ancestors. That's just
silly.
> >
> >> Injustices? Who was it who killed off the first settlers in the New
> >> World?
> >
> >That would be Columbus and his thugs decimating the natives of "Hispania".
>
> After they turned on the fine man and his crew.
The 'fine man' came here seeking gold and slaves. Yeah, a real noble guy.
> >> When a civilised people clash with an uncivilised people, what
> >> happened was exactly what was to be expected.
> >
> >Yes, from the point of view of the 'civilized' savages raping, pillaging, and
> >plundering the innocent primitives minding their own business in their own land.
> >What's done is done, but this ostrich attitude of not facing the true history of this
> >country is just plain despicable.
>
> Looks like I got to you -- good. Self-inflated, hoity-toity little
> twits like yourself deserve it.
Boy that's devastating logic, especially from a half-baked snide little bigot of a
crypto-Nazi like yourself.
> Charles Riggs
You misspelled "David Duke".
sabsy
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b125e18....@news.saix.net...
> On Sun, 27 May 2001 17:21:21 -0600, Benjamin Lukoff
> <l=u=k=o_b_e_@y+a+h-o-o-.-c=o=m> wrote:
>
>
> >I'm sure whoever put the site together had been taught
> >"African-American" as a euphemism for "black" and didn't bother to think
> >of what it really meant.
> >
> >Now, for those who don't like "black", what are you supposed to call
> >people like Nelson Mandela?
I American denotes connection with America
>
> A pensioner - it's what he calls himself.
And for those Americans morons, they can refer to him as a South African
pensioner, which fortunately, he is.
R J Valentine
} Thus Spake R J Valentine:
}> On Mon, 28 May 2001 17:39:26 +0200 Stipan <sti...@my-deja.com> wrote:
}> ...
}> } I didn't say that "black" was politically incorrect but it seems to be
}> } perceived by more and more people as such.
}>
}> In the sense that *any* mention of someone's ethnic heritage or other
}> irrelevant characteristic is likely to be startling in societies where
}> roles aren't defined by such things. In my last seventeen conversations
}> with people of various backgrounds and appearances, such things haven't
}> come up once. If someone behind me started talking in those terms, I'd
}> have to turn around to see if Rey was back in town.
}>
}> Now if someone started to use a particular term for the group they're
}> lumping me into, I'd try to make sure they knew I preferred a different
}> term, so they'd be sure to be conscious of when they're using it, and I'd
}> change it every time they got too comfortable with it.
}
} Write your own damn postings -- I wrote that one days ago!
Well, you had me wondering for a second there, so I waded through some
1600 threads looking for a possibility and came up with this one some 200
threads back from about the 21st:
----------------------------Begin quoted partial posting--------------
Not to mention downright impossible.
Who decides what "they" want to be called? How do "we" determine that
"our" take on the matter is the correct one?
If I were black, could I choose to remain black instead of becoming
African-American?
The whole thing is simply another way of making money from dupes.
Anyway, "African-American" has been acceptable for too long.
-----------------------------End quoted partial posting---------------
Is that the one you're talking about? I don't know about you, but to me
it seems to use different words to say about the opposite of what I said,
but that doesn't surprise me. I couldn't find anything else from you on
this thread. I did find the following, a little farther back:
--------------------------------Begin quoted posting------------------
Thus Spake R J Valentine:
> On Thu, 3 May 2001 18:11:46 +0200 realmrhanky <ne...@groupie.net> wrote:
>
> } what does this mean.
> }
> } thanks in advance
>
> It means that you expect a response, but you won't be back to thank the
> responder and you may not be back to see the response. Some people even
> use it when they hide their questions in one of the message headers,
> apparently under the assumption that people will go hunting for them when
> they don't find them somewhere obvious. The noted and extremely clever
> philologist Dr. Reinhold Aman probably has for sale long lists of other
> things it means. Practically speaking, it means "Skip to the next
> thread."
Liar, liar, pants are on fire!
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
---------------------------------End quoted posting-------------------
But that's neither here nor there.
} For what it's worth, the converse is also true -- not only will people
} refuse to allow you to opt out of the "in" collective-noun, but
} sometimes they will refuse you entry beneath the banner that currently
} serves their purposes.
I don't think I agree with what you appear to be saying in the first part
of that, if you're talking about what people call themselves. I haven't
heard anyone being criticized for referring to themselves as "black" or
even as "colored". You may have a point if you're talking about what
outsiders call people, and I've heard people say that "Negro" isn't used
nowadays. I'm not sure what you're saying in the last part, unless the
following is the explanation, in which case I'll take your word for it.
} In Norway people are often referred to as "av utenlandsk opprinnelse"
} ("of foreign origin") in relation to police enquiries. I own up
} immediately: "it was me!" So far no one has taken me seriously, but
} then, I have my "opprinnelse" in the wrong "utland".
I can't argue with that.
Steve Hayes
<rle...@brazosport.cc.tx.us> wrote:
>So is painting a sugar-coated portrait of the "innocent people" Columbus
>encountered. Ah well, at least the Caribs got in a couple of good
>counterstrikes at the Europeans: virulent syphilis and tobacco.
Syphilis, however, is spirocetal, not virulent.
Steve Hayes
http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius
Brian J Goggin
<chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 May 2001 10:24:42 GMT, Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie>
>wrote:
>>Try seeing it as a civilisation with superior military technology
>>clashes with another which has less.
>Along with being a civilization that had a written language, books,
>cities, cathedrals, Bach, Isaac Newton, and far greater justification,
>for these and any number of other reasons, for being the rulers
>instead of the ruled. Things work out as they must; no-one said life
>was fair.
Run the dates by me again, would you?
bjg
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" wrote:
> > Benjamin Lukoff wrote:
> > > Now, for those who don't like "black", what are you supposed
> > > to call people like Nelson Mandela?
> > a) black (South) African
> > b) Negro
> > c) kaffir (the S.Afr. equivalent of U.S. "nigger")
> > d) swarte (Afrikaans, lit. "black one")
> > e) neger (Afrikaans, lit. "Negro")
> What I meant by "people like Nelson Mandela" is not "black South
> Africans" but "blacks not from America". What is the PC term for
> such people? Just curious.
Let's use a Brazilian. Change "Brazilian" to any other appropriate
nationality.
Plain & honest: a Brazilian Negro
Somewhat p.c.: a black Brazilian
Stupid p.c.: a Brazilian of color
Silly p.c.: a melanin-enriched Brazilian (from Greek _melas_, black)
Oblique p.c.: a Melano-Brazilian
Mock p.c.: a Brazilian of the negroid persuasion
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Now what would you call an Afrikaaner whose family has lived in
> South Africa for three hundred years and migrates to the U.S.?
If he's of Dutch ancestry, a Boer-American.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> I recently learnt from a genealogy ng that they are called
> "First nations".
"First Nations" is a ridiculous term forced upon our neighbors to the
north by Canadian Indian activists and their white political
bootlickers, or better, moccasinlickers.
Calling groups of ragtag savage tribes and bands "nations" is stretching
the meaning of "nation." Sweden, Italy, and France are nations.
If "first" has to be used to build up the self-esteem of hordes of
unemployed and alcoholic welfare recipients, Canadian Injuns should be
called "First Immigrants."
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Santa Rosa, Calif., USA
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[big snips]
> > I understand that this is a complex brief and would probably
> > agree with Rey should he say: "What's wrong with Injins?!" :)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> It occured to me that my statement above could conceivably
> be read by some readers in an unintended way.
>
> My reference to "Rey"'s hypothetical response (not that
> he would necessarily say such a thing) is being direct
> and clear in communication, without resorting to PC talk,
You've got me all figured out, Shahin. Indeed, I do say "Injuns" and
"Meskins" at times. The latter term was frequently used by the witty
former Dallas (Texas) journalist Joe Bob Briggs, who was pressured into
resigning from his newspaper job by "sensitive" Mexican-Americans upset
by this "slur."
"Injuns" and "Meskins" are essentially not worse than "dunno" or
"gonna": they are just casually enunciated words.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> I was born and brought up here, and like most
> people, I haven't moved far from my origins.
Like most people? Wrong. In the USA alone, about 20% of the population
move every year, often across the continent. The same is true of
millions of people in Western Europe -- the political refugees after WW
II and after the fall of the Wall, the collapse of the former USSR, the
Balkans wars, and the civil wars in Asia and Africa have caused many
millions of people to move far away from their birth places.
> I imagine most of those in the American West
> are there because they were born there too.
Even wronger. Try to find a native-born Californian, Nevadan, Arizonan,
Oregonian or Washingtonian. Most current residents came from all over
the nation and from many foreign lands, especially from Asia and
Latin-American countries.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Rowan Dingle
>Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> I was born and brought up here, and like most
>> people, I haven't moved far from my origins.
>
>Like most people? Wrong.
[Snip mainland Europe and the US]
But right for England and Wales. (Don't know the figures for Scotland.)
As I was surprised to read earlier this year that 70% live within 5
miles of their birthplace.
--
Rowan Dingle
Armond Perretta
"Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote ...
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> > I was born and brought up here, and like most
> > people, I haven't moved far from my origins.
>
> Like most people? Wrong. In the USA alone, about 20% of the population
I don't think this statistic as presented disproves Chris' assertion.
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://members.tripod.com/kerrydeare
lindy
Imagine what South Africa would be like today if that were true! LOL
>The following are listed as "African-American Men of History"
>
>Thabo Mbeki
>Paul Kruger
>Nelson Mandela
>Milton Obote
John O'Flaherty
> "Robert E. Lewis" <rle...@brazosport.cc.tx.us> writes:
>
> >> As far as 'innocence' goes, even the war-like tribes weren't guilty of
> >invading
> >> and colonizing Europe. Pretty simple math.
>
> >Pretty simplistic. They didn't invade Europe because they weren't *able* to
> >invade Europe. It's ridiculous to paint them as "innocent" because they
> >didn't make war on places they didn't know existed and couldn't get to.
> >Using that standard, I would like to nominate all of European humanity for
> >the Nobel Peace Prize for refraining from invading and colonizing the Planet
> >Schnicklefritz. Pretty simple math.
>
> I take it you wish to exclude Americans from this prize because you
> suspect that the real reason for Duhbya's laser-based missile shield
> is to police access to space?
There's no other way to protect Schnicklefritz from the Euros.
--
john
change roast to burnt bread to reply
John O'Flaherty
> On Mon, 28 May 2001 11:40:45 -0500, "Robert E. Lewis"
> <rle...@brazosport.cc.tx.us> wrote:
>
> >So is painting a sugar-coated portrait of the "innocent people" Columbus
> >encountered. Ah well, at least the Caribs got in a couple of good
> >counterstrikes at the Europeans: virulent syphilis and tobacco.
>
> Syphilis, however, is spirocetal, not virulent.
vir·u·lent adj. 1.a. Extremely infectious, malignant, or poisonous. Used of
a disease or toxin. b. Capable of causing disease by breaking down protective
mechanisms of the host. Used of a pathogen.
Sounds like spirochetes can be virulent.
Raymond S. Wise
I would say that "a Brazilian Negro" would be technical, since I would
not expect anyone besides a scientist such as an anthropologist to use
it. _Negro_ has the advantage that in English it refers to one race
only, whereas _black_ has been used for members of other races.
For the category "Plain & honest" I would substitute "a black
Brazilian." There is little possibility of misunderstanding: "a black
Brazilian" would be a Brazilian descended from the people of
sub-Saharan Africa formerly called Negroes.
I am currently reading a book by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza called
_Genes, Peoples, and Languages,_ New York: North Point Press, (C)2000.
It is a popularization translated from the Italian. I note that in
this book the term _Negroes_ is not used: The term used is _Blacks_
(with a capital), except when African-Americans are specifically
indicated, in which case _Black Americans_ and _African American_
(with no hyphen) are used.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
Matthew Huntbach
> Mary MacTavish wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 27 May 2001 23:48:58 -0600, Benjamin Lukoff
> >
> > >What I meant by "people like Nelson Mandela" is not "black South
> > >Africans" but "blacks not from America". What is the PC term for such
> > >people? Just curious.
> >
>
> *I* don't think so, but I know a lot of people think there's something
> wrong with "black". I am curious to know what the PC types think is a
> good alternative, not that I would use that alternative.
In the UK, "black" is still the politically correct term to use for
people of African ancestry. In fact, until recently, it was the height
of political correctness to use the word black for *anyone* who was
not of European ancestry. This managed to piss off both people of
African ancestry who thought the term should be exclusive to them,
and people of Asian ancestry who didn't like the term being used
of them. I remember my wife, who is of Indian ancestry, crossing
out the term "Black Asian" in one of these racial monitoring forms
her politically correct council sends ou to anyone who uses their
services. On the other hand, she is happy to describe herself
as "coloured" and to use this term to mean anyone who is not of
European ancestry, even though the PC police hold up their hands
in horror at anyone using that term and consider it almost a form of
racist abuse. I guess my wife just hasn't kept up with politically
correct fashions.
The recent UK census has endorsed the UK usage of "Asian" when used
to refer to race as being restricted to people of Indian subcontinental
ancestry. In the question on your race there was a section labelled
"Asian", but another section labelled "Other" with notes actually
saying "e.g. Chinese". This is, of course, the complete opposite of
the common use of Asian in the USA and Australia. Here in the UK we
could say "Asians and Chinese". In the USA and Australia you can say
"Asians and Indians".
Matthew Huntbach
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Then why do most of them call themselves that? None of the Indians
> I've ever known used the silly term "Native Americans". Never.
Looking at current Stanford groups (which are self-named), both seem
to be used:
American Indian Science and Engineering Society (a national org)
American Indian Staff Forum
Stanford American Indian Alumni Association
Stanford American Indian Medical Students
Stanford American Indian Organization
Fuzzy Undergraduate Natives
Native American Christian Fellowship
Native American Law Student Association
Native American Orientation Committee
Stanford Native American Graduate Students
http://www.stanford.edu/group/aip/organizations.htm
Officially, they seem to be used interchangeably. The "American
Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Program" maintains the
"Native American Cultural Center".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"The Dynamics of Interbeing and
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |Monological Imperatives in 'Dick
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and Jane' : A Study in Psychic
|Transrelational Modes."
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>
> >When a civilised people clash with an uncivilised people, what
> >happened was exactly what was to be expected.
>
> So the civilized natives killed the uncivilized colonists?
>
> What would have happened if some hundred 'native Americans'
> (pre-columbian americans?) had arrives, say, in Le Havre and
> claimed Normandy for their 'chief'?
They would have died of the same diseases that they died of from the
European colonists. See Jared Diamond's _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ for
an explanation of why the lack of domesticable animals in North and
South America left the inhabitants with no resistance to common
European and Asian diseases.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |...as a mobile phone is analogous
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |to a Q-Tip -- yeah, it's something
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you stick in your ear, but there
|all resemblance ends.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Ross Howard
(650)857-7572
Moira de Swardt
Andy Averill <andya at lisco dot com> wrote in message
news:3b117...@Newsfeeds.com...
> I have also heard that black people from the West Indies who are
living in
> the US don't like to be called African-American, but I'm not quite
sure why.
Probably because they're neither African nor American.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Moira de Swardt
Reinhold (Rey) Aman <am...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> Benjamin Lukoff wrote:
> [...]
> > Now, for those who don't like "black", what are you supposed
> > to call people like Nelson Mandela?
> a) black (South) African
> b) Negro
> c) kaffir (the S.Afr. equivalent of U.S. "nigger")
This is an extremely offensive term in South Africa, one which
Nelson Mandela himself deplores.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Along with being a civilization that had a written language, books,
Fray Diego de Landa, bishop of Merida, on the Maya:[1]
These people also used certain characters or letters, with which
they read in their books about the antiquities and their sciences;
with these, and figures, and certain signs in the figures, they
understood their matters and made them known, and taught them. We
found a great number of books in their letters, and since they
contained nothing but superstitions and falsehoods the devil we
burned them all, which they took most grievously, and which gave
them great pain.
http://members.nbci.com/mayaglyphs/books/landa/landa41.html
A grand total of three codices are known to have survived the
auto-de-fe of 1562.
Being something of a scientist, da Landa attempted to describe the
writing system be for he obliterated it (as far as he knew--the
older monumental inscriptions weren't discovered for some years).
[1] Usaban también esta gente de ciertos caracteres o letras con las
cuales escribían en sus libros sus cosas antiguas y sus ciencias,
y con ellas y figuras y algunas señales en las figuras, entendían
sus cosas y las daban a entender y las enseñaban. Hallámosles gran
numero de libros de estas sus letras, y por que no tenían cosa en
que no hubiese superstición y falsedades del Demonio, se los
quemamos todos, lo cual sentían a maravilla y les daba pena.
http://www.laneta.apc.org/lacolmena/codices2000.htm
which Google translates as
this people of certain characters or letters also Used with which
their old things and their sciences wrote in their books, and with
them and figures and some signals in the figures, they understood
its things and they gave them to understand and they taught
them. We found them great I number of books of these his letters,
and so that they did not have thing in which there were not
superstition and falsifications of the Demon, we burned all, which
felt to wonder and it gave pain them.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |So when can we quit passing laws and
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |raising taxes? When can we say of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |our political system, "Stick a fork
|in it, it's done?"
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572
Mike Lyle
Mike.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> STEAM GENE wrote:
>
> > Now what would you call an Afrikaaner whose family has lived in
> > South Africa for three hundred years and migrates to the U.S.?
>
> If he's of Dutch ancestry, a Boer-American.
I'd probably go with "Afrikaner-American".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The Elizabethans had so many words
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |for the female genitals that it is
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |quite hard to speak a sentence of
|modern English without inadvertently
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |mentioning at least three of them.
(650)857-7572 | Terry Pratchett
Baba Mung
Hi, Mike,
I know there must be lots of Mike's about. I have in mind Mike and
Clare, West London? A Home Like Ours, Geronimo, etc?
Mungo
Mike Barnes <mi...@senrab.com> wrote in message
news:unMeM3AI...@senrab.com...
> In alt.usage.english, Benjamin Lukoff
<l=u=k=o_b_e_@y+a+h-o-o-.-c=o=m>
> wrote
> >Now, for those who don't like "black", what are you supposed to
call
> >people like Nelson Mandela?
>
> I don't think there are any people quite like Nelson Mandela. But
"Sir"
> would be my choice.
>
> --
> Mike Barnes
Benjamin Lukoff
> > I imagine most of those in the American West
> > are there because they were born there too.
>
> Even wronger. Try to find a native-born Californian, Nevadan, Arizonan,
> Oregonian or Washingtonian. Most current residents came from all over
> the nation and from many foreign lands, especially from Asia and
> Latin-American countries.
*Most* current residents? I would dispute that, at least as far as
Washington goes. Most of the people I know here in Seattle were born in
the state.
Skitt
"Benjamin Lukoff" <l=u=k=o_b_e_@y+a+h-o-o-.-c=o=m> wrote in message
Yeah, those that came to that area in 1967, me including, had to leave in
1969 or 1970. I was one of the last, but not late enough to have to turn
out the lights.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Simon R. Hughes
> On Tue, 29 May 2001 00:33:37 +0200 Simon R. Hughes <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>
> } Thus Spake R J Valentine:
[snip]
> }> Now if someone started to use a particular term for the group they're
> }> lumping me into, I'd try to make sure they knew I preferred a different
> }> term, so they'd be sure to be conscious of when they're using it, and I'd
> }> change it every time they got too comfortable with it.
> }
> } Write your own damn postings -- I wrote that one days ago!
>
> Well, you had me wondering for a second there, so I waded through some
> 1600 threads looking for a possibility and came up with this one some 200
> threads back from about the 21st:
>
> ----------------------------Begin quoted partial posting--------------
> Not to mention downright impossible.
>
> Who decides what "they" want to be called? How do "we" determine that
> "our" take on the matter is the correct one?
>
> If I were black, could I choose to remain black instead of becoming
> African-American?
>
> The whole thing is simply another way of making money from dupes.
>
> Anyway, "African-American" has been acceptable for too long.
> -----------------------------End quoted partial posting---------------
>
> Is that the one you're talking about?
That's the one I was referring to.
> I don't know about you, but to me
> it seems to use different words to say about the opposite of what I said,
> but that doesn't surprise me.
Are you calling into question my ability to read?
Let me take a moment to compare the two...
No, I think we're agreed (excepting the monetary aspect, perhaps).
Unless I have completely missed what you are saying, my "If I were
black, could I choose to remain black instead of becoming African-
American?" is equivalent in thought to your "Now if someone started to
use a particular term for the group they're lumping me into, I'd try
to make sure they knew I preferred a different term"
My "'African-American' has been acceptable for too long." is much
the same as your "and I'd change it every time they got too
comfortable with it."
Close enough. Or maybe it's that irony thing. Were you flexing your
irony muscles again? You'll strain something.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> > I imagine most of those in the American West are there because
> > they were born there too.
>
> Even wronger. Try to find a native-born Californian,
I can find two easily. At least, my wife claims to be native-born.
I'm pretty sure about my son, though, as I was there at the time.
(And, of course, there are native-born Californians living all over
the country, but that's beside the point.)
> Nevadan, Arizonan, Oregonian or Washingtonian. Most current
> residents came from all over the nation and from many foreign lands,
> especially from Asia and Latin-American countries.
I'm not even sure that the proportion of "foreigners" statewide is as
high as it seems here in the Bay Area (and the California web site
doesn't seem to give stats on it), but I would have read "American
West" to be more Colorado, Wyoming, or Montana than California,
Oregon, and Washington. Those last are "Pacific Coast" and the
population dynamics are, I'm sure, pretty different. I'd expect that
when you get out of Las Vegas and Reno, most of Nevada's population
was born there, as well.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I believe there are more instances
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |of the abridgment of the freedom of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the people by gradual and silent
|encroachments of those in power
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |than by violent and sudden
(650)857-7572 |usurpations.
| James Madison
Del J.
take umbrage?
It's a shame that Mugabe, Moi, et.al. can't see fit to become pensioners.
Del
"sabsy" <sa...@deletethis.pmail.net> wrote in message
news:3b134...@news1.mweb.co.za...
>
> "Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3b125e18....@news.saix.net...
> > On Sun, 27 May 2001 17:21:21 -0600, Benjamin Lukoff
> > <l=u=k=o_b_e_@y+a+h-o-o-.-c=o=m> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >I'm sure whoever put the site together had been taught
> > >"African-American" as a euphemism for "black" and didn't bother to
think
> > >of what it really meant.
> > >
> > >Now, for those who don't like "black", what are you supposed to call
> > >people like Nelson Mandela?
>
> I American denotes connection with America
> >
> > A pensioner - it's what he calls himself.
>
>
> And for those Americans morons, they can refer to him as a South African
> pensioner, which fortunately, he is.
>
>