On June 24 2020 09:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 09:06 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On June 24 2020 07:49 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 07:25 micronesia wrote:On June 24 2020 07:04 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 05:45 micronesia wrote:On June 24 2020 05:26 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 05:04 micronesia wrote:On June 24 2020 04:58 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 04:53 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
This explains your position in Canada. Do you have evidence that the Native Americans in the USA feel the same way? If so I'll agree with your original claims. I'm sorry because I've never see you as ignorant, but for example the Blackfoot nation is not Canadian or American, it govers territory in both countries. Many of the people travel back and forth, the Blackfoot nation is not the only one like this. I'm not sure what you after, it really does not matter if some people do or don't find it offensive to whether it is or is not. It does not matter if it is used in school's or on websites. It is no different than if we were talking about this around the N word 50 years ago. Edit: it didn't at some point become offensive, it always was just many people were ignorant to that fact. The only people who can decide if the Native Americans in the USA don't like it when members of the USA use the term "Indian" is Native Americans in the USA. Perhaps there is a small amount of overlap between those Canadian issues you linked to and the type of evidence I am looking for... I hadn't noticed that and if I missed it I apologize. However, my point stands that you have no right to accuse Americans of being ignorant for using a term that Native Americans in the USA don't like, when talking about Native Americans in the USA, unless Native Americans in the USA have said so to the USA to some reasonable extent. Your logic for why you think the term is insulting is invalid unless some reasonable quantity of Native Americans in the location of question actually agree with you. I use the term Native American because I think your conclusions is correct, but I just don't agree that you've backed up your conclusion properly yet (although perhaps you are close due to overlaps between Native Americans in Canada and Native Americans in the USA). I completely do, for personal as well as because it is factual. It was given to them based on ignorance and by a people who treated them as sub human. That is just the facts, if you want to use that term because you don't think it is offensive I would suggest that it ignorance. That you are not wanting to be racist but are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_studies#:~:text=Native American studies (also known,taking a hemispheric approach, theObjections to the usage of "Indian" and "American Indian" include the fact that "Indian" arose from a historical error, and thus does not accurately reflect the derivation of the people to whom it refers; and some feel that the term has absorbed negative and demeaning connotations through its historical usage that render it objectionable in context. Additionally, "American Indian" is often understood to mean only the peoples of the mainland body of the United States, which excludes other Native Americans in the United States who are considered indigenous peoples of the Americas; including the Haida, Tlingit, Athabascan, Inuit, Yup'ik (Yuits/Alutiiq/Cup'ik), Iñupiat, Aleut (i.e., the groups whose traditional languages are Eskimo–Aleut languages), Marshallese, and Samoan; who are referred to collectively as either Alaskan Natives, First Nations, Native Hawaiians or Siberians.
Supporters of the terms "Indian" and "American Indian" argue that they have been in use for such a long period of time that many people have become accustomed to them and no longer consider them exonyms. Both terms are still widely used today. "American Indian" appears often in treaties between the United States and the indigenous peoples with whom they have been negotiating since the colonial period, and many federal, state and local laws also use it.[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversyIf your point is that some First nation's people are not offended and that lots of people use the term "Indian" I would agree with you. That does not mean it is not, the same way the N word was once used commonly and not all black people are offended by it. https://www.insider.com/native-american-offensive-racist-things-2020-1#im-not-indian-im-native-american-indigenous-or-first-nations-4https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/what-s-in-a-name-indian-native-aboriginal-or-indigenous-1.2784518Let me spin this around to you. What about calling native American's Indian's is not ignorant? You aren't reading what I wrote. "if you want to use that term because you don't think it is offensive I would suggest that it ignorance" I never expressed a desire to use the term. I specifically expressed that I think the term is likely offensive and I don't use it. You are starting with the conclusion and working backwards here. If the term is not offensive it's okay to use it. If the term is offensive then using it likely means you are ignorant. Saying you are ignorant because you use the term, prior to establishing that the term is offensive, is pointless. You are arguing with nobody. "If your point is that some First nation's people are not offended and that lots of people use the term "Indian" I would agree with you." That is not my point. My point is that people in the USA using the term "Indians" to refer to Native Americans in the USA is okay unless the Native Americans in the USA are not okay with it. Of course, it doesn't need to be 100% of Native Americans in the USA... but it should be more than say, 1 person. If you can point to a Tribe that has formally stated that they do not prefer people refer to them as Indians, then I think that's sufficient evidence, even if some other Tribes are okay with the term. I don't think it's hard to find or provide this evidence, I'm just calling your logic chain into question. You are wrong until you provide this evidence. Then you are right and we can stop discussing this.It bothers me when people get offended on behalf of other people, and it turns out those other people weren't even offended. I'm just asking you to show this is not the case. You may think the term "Indian" being incorrect from the getgo automatically makes the term offensive, but not all Native Americans agree with you, so at least show that some of them do (in the region of relevance given that you were addressing people from the USA when this was triggered). You are not choosing a reasonable hill to die on here. I do not use the term Indian to refer to Native Americans, or am I suggesting other people do that in the USA or elsewhere. edit: "Let me spin this around to you. What about calling native American's Indian's is not ignorant? " Answer: 99% of Native Americans in the USA aren't offended by it. Prove me wrong and you win. Perhaps you missed that I am of Native American descent, I have American Cousin's many that are full blood and I guess I could get them to create accounts log in and tell you they don't like it. If I seem flippant it is because it is amazingly absurd for me to have to prove to you why a term so BLATANTLY rooted in racism is offensive. But I guess here goes. First lets start with Danglar's use, he had the brave general defending America from the "Indian's". In this context it is obviously racist since it was the people he is calling "american's" many of who at that time were likely born in Europe or first Generation "american" defening "their" land. I hope you can see the problem with that. Next I looked up Native American studies in the US. While I did see a couple called Native American and American Indian's studies, I saw none called "Indian's". Yes American Indian is less offensive, I don't prefer it but I will say it is better. However most did not. I put forward that if it was unoffensive to 99% of First Nation's people in the USA that they would All be called Indian studies, none were and most were called what I would deem non offensive terms. http://www.ou.edu/cas/nashttps://www.colorado.edu/cnais/https://www.uaf.edu/indigenous/https://english.gmu.edu/programs/la-minor-la-nais?_ga=1.19843320.1764790523.1451302302https://native-american.dartmouth.edu/http://www.law.msu.edu/indigenous/https://nas.unm.edu/https://nau.edu/ais/https://nacc.stanford.edu/https://www.cser.columbia.edu/indigenoushttps://liberalarts.utexas.edu/nais/Here is a quote for you. How I loathe the term "indian." ... "Indian" is used to sell things--souveniers, cigars, cigarettes, gasoline,cars.... "Indian" is a figment of the white man's imagination Lenore Keeshig-Tobias, Ojibwe 1990 She is Canadian but I like the quote, and as a Canadian I tend to know more of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenore_Keeshig-TobiasThis is also Canadian, but it goes through the various titles, I'll get to more American stuff shortly. The term “Indian” refers to the legal identity of a First Nations person who is registered under the Indian Act. The term “Indian” should be used only when referring to a First Nations person with status under the Indian Act, and only within its legal context. Aside from this specific legal context, the term “Indian” in Canada is considered outdated and may be considered offensive due to its complex and often idiosyncratic colonial use in governing identity through this legislation and a myriad of other distinctions (i.e., “treaty” and “non-treaty,” etc.). In the United States, however, the term “American Indian” and “Native Indian” are both in current and common usage.
You may also hear some First Nations people refer to themselves as “Indians.” While there are many reasons for an individual to self-identify as such, this may be a deliberate act on their part to position and present themselves as someone who is defined by federal legislation.
“Indian Band” is also a legal term under the Indian Act to denote a grouping of status Indians. (For more information on this, see our section on bands.) https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/terminology/Here is a article about 5 Native American's describing which terms they prefer. Not surprisingly most prefer to be called by their specific tribe but then often as Native American. Some of them say American Indian is fine, None say Indian. Here are some quotes. “We aren’t Indian. When other people [non-Natives] say ‘Indian’ it’s because they don’t know any better. And sometimes it comes out of ignorance.” She states that when she hears non-Natives use the term “Indian” it reminds her of how people use the term “redskin” out of ignorance. “Some people just don’t know the history of the name and they think it is just the name of a football team.” She states that non-Natives should refer to us as Native American or indigenous.” Waln also said he feels the term ‘indigenous’ is an acceptable blanket statement of our people. He deters from terms such as ‘Sioux’ or ‘Indian,’ but knows others who use these terms. “I feel every Native should have the choice. Those conversations we need to have within ourselves, and it’s not for the outside to know everything about us or be involved in those types of conversations. Because those are for us.” “For most of my life, I didn’t understand I was attached to this amazing ancestry. That I came from such strong people because a lot of what media tells us is, as Native people, we are dumb, cheap, less than, we’re savages, we’re alcoholics, and I internalized that as a kid because that is the environment I grew up in. When I speak to Native kids now, I remind them that they come from greatness. Greatness is inside all of us. That myth that Natives are dumb, primitive, savages, even shy, it’s all a lie! I call myself Sicangu Lakota because to me that name is strong, that name is old; it predates the United States.”
Waln also said he feels the term ‘indigenous’ is an acceptable blanket statement of our people. He deters from terms such as ‘Sioux’ or ‘Indian,’ but knows others who use these terms. “I feel every Native should have the choice. Those conversations we need to have within ourselves, and it’s not for the outside to know everything about us or be involved in those types of conversations. Because those are for us.” When asked which references she feels most comfortable with she says, “I prefer indigenous, but I am comfortable with ‘Native American’ or ‘American Indian’. The reason I prefer indigenous is because being indigenous means you are of a place, one place on earth, which is unique to you. It identifies our peoples well because we referred to ourselves as from a place or location.” Here is another. https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/native/homepage.htmA common belief in the contemporary United States, often unspoken and unconscious, implies that everyone has a right to use Indians as they see fit; everyone owns them. Indianness is a national heritage; it is a fount for commercial enterprise; it is a costume one can put on for a party, a youth activity, or a sporting event. This sense of entitlement, this expression of white privilege, has a long history, manifesting itself in national narratives, popular entertainments, marketing schemes, sporting worlds, and self-improvement regimes. C. Richard King, redskins: Insult and Brand (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2016), 100. It really did not take the long to find all of this. I find it very strange that you ask me to prove something is offensive but maybe you don't know any Native American's or have any around where you live. I hope this has shown you that 99% of native American's would rather not be called Indian's. If it does not than so be it. I'm not looking to "win", I'm looking for people to not not be ignorant and think about the terms that they use, what they mean and who they may offend unintentionally. he easiest way to think of why it is offensive is think about where it came from, and what happened to those people when it was commonly used. Something being used commonly does not make it right, every word that you would consider awful likely had a time when it was considered alright and was commonly used as well. And on top of that context matters, so when danglar's chooses to use it the way he did, as if the "indians" were in the wrong for attacking the poor innocent American's it becomes clearer. It is also pretty obvious of Danglar's thinks on these sorts of matters from his many awful posts. I did not realize that you were of Native American descent. Had I known that I would have broached the issue with you more delicately. I have met Native Americans in the USA who did not object to the use of the term Indian. I have not met Native Americans in the USA who object to the use of the term (in my presence so I was aware). I expect you know way more people of Native American descent than I do, and you even said some of them are in the USA, so your personal anecdotes may be more valuable than I originally gave them credit for. It still seems surprisingly challenging to find widespread evidence that dislike of the term "Indian" is prevalent among Native Americans in the USA. For many other terms, it's super easy to find the evidence. As I was trying to say before, "why" the term should be considered offensive is only relevant if the Native Americans are actually offended. Given that you've likely personally been offended by this issue before, I'll recognize that if either of us did more digging we'd surely find enough evidence that we can move past the "do Native Americans in the USA even dislike the term being used in the USA." Also, if Americans saying "Indian" were only offensive to Native Americans in Canada, a good argument can still be made that Americans should stop using the term, even if the USA-based Native Americans are indifferent. If I go back and read a couple of your earlier posts as, "As someone of Native American descent, I find the term insulting because..." then it makes a lot more sense to appeal to the logic behind why the term would be considered insensitive or ignorant. I can appreciate that, I don't bring it up a lot because I am not full blood and really don't experience the systematic racism that most do. Most people who look at me in the summer think I'm Hungarian or something and in the winter no one knows. In the reading I just did on the American sites there seems to be a fair amount of acceptance for the use of "American Indian" but I didn't read anything about Indian. I get that they are very similar but from those I read it mattered. To be honest, I was a little bit taken aback when noticing how often "Indian" is used pretty much interchangeably with Native here. Plenty of tribe-operated services and industries here use "Indian" (without an "American" prefix) in titles. It seems just as common as being titled after the tribe which runs it. The first time I heard someone say that they would have to go to the Indian hospital for something, I thought it a poor choice of words, until realizing that there is a big building called "Indian Hospital" down the road. The trail of tears ended around here, and I would think that the tribes relocated here would be the first to speak out against an incorrect label forced upon them, but most of the natives I have met here recognize it as just a name. It used to be like that here but as more cane out about the residential school and the horrible abuse indigenous children had (the last one closed in the nineties and is one of Canada's greatest shames, in it so heinous that it forced everyone to stop, admit fault and start working on reconciliation.) the conversation changed and a lot of work was done as part of the reconciliation. It gets really complicated for example most bands have two chiefs, hereditary chiefs and elected chiefs. Some hate the elected chiefs because that is the Whiteman world, some don't like the hereditary because they think the way forward is through blending the old and new. And then trying to get all the bands to agree on most anything is like getting all the European countries to agree. If your white and you don't want to offend anyone native American is the safest. If you want to trigger them use any term in the context of americans (or Canadians) defending their land against them, I don't know any who think that is OK. Most people are pretty forgiving and are so used to it that they don't get offended but probably don't prefer the term Indian if you asked politely once you got to know them. Most would describe themselves as "Blackfoot" or whatever anyway. If you want a humorous look into the culture there is a website that is like onion but with first nation issues. My favorite are the silly ones like "powwow mc's warn were running out of jokes" but there is more cutting ones like "provincial leaders outraged militarized American police don't do land acknowledgement before brutalizing people" or "businesses struggle to racially profile Indigenious shopper amid Covid-19 pamdemic". I find that kind of humor awesome because of how it makes you think. https://walkingeaglenews.com/
I understand, and should have clarified my previous post that referring to someone as "Indian" is still coarse, just that the word itself around here doesn't appear to have such an offensive charge to it. This seemed foreign to me when I moved here, as when I attended high school in NY I was under the impression that it was a word that should make its way out of the lexicon. I've never had an issue with wondering what to address someone as, seeing as how first names work pretty well for me.
On June 24 2020 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 09:06 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On June 24 2020 07:49 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 07:25 micronesia wrote:On June 24 2020 07:04 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 05:45 micronesia wrote:On June 24 2020 05:26 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 05:04 micronesia wrote:On June 24 2020 04:58 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 04:53 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
This explains your position in Canada. Do you have evidence that the Native Americans in the USA feel the same way? If so I'll agree with your original claims. I'm sorry because I've never see you as ignorant, but for example the Blackfoot nation is not Canadian or American, it govers territory in both countries. Many of the people travel back and forth, the Blackfoot nation is not the only one like this. I'm not sure what you after, it really does not matter if some people do or don't find it offensive to whether it is or is not. It does not matter if it is used in school's or on websites. It is no different than if we were talking about this around the N word 50 years ago. Edit: it didn't at some point become offensive, it always was just many people were ignorant to that fact. The only people who can decide if the Native Americans in the USA don't like it when members of the USA use the term "Indian" is Native Americans in the USA. Perhaps there is a small amount of overlap between those Canadian issues you linked to and the type of evidence I am looking for... I hadn't noticed that and if I missed it I apologize. However, my point stands that you have no right to accuse Americans of being ignorant for using a term that Native Americans in the USA don't like, when talking about Native Americans in the USA, unless Native Americans in the USA have said so to the USA to some reasonable extent. Your logic for why you think the term is insulting is invalid unless some reasonable quantity of Native Americans in the location of question actually agree with you. I use the term Native American because I think your conclusions is correct, but I just don't agree that you've backed up your conclusion properly yet (although perhaps you are close due to overlaps between Native Americans in Canada and Native Americans in the USA). I completely do, for personal as well as because it is factual. It was given to them based on ignorance and by a people who treated them as sub human. That is just the facts, if you want to use that term because you don't think it is offensive I would suggest that it ignorance. That you are not wanting to be racist but are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_studies#:~:text=Native American studies (also known,taking a hemispheric approach, theObjections to the usage of "Indian" and "American Indian" include the fact that "Indian" arose from a historical error, and thus does not accurately reflect the derivation of the people to whom it refers; and some feel that the term has absorbed negative and demeaning connotations through its historical usage that render it objectionable in context. Additionally, "American Indian" is often understood to mean only the peoples of the mainland body of the United States, which excludes other Native Americans in the United States who are considered indigenous peoples of the Americas; including the Haida, Tlingit, Athabascan, Inuit, Yup'ik (Yuits/Alutiiq/Cup'ik), Iñupiat, Aleut (i.e., the groups whose traditional languages are Eskimo–Aleut languages), Marshallese, and Samoan; who are referred to collectively as either Alaskan Natives, First Nations, Native Hawaiians or Siberians.
Supporters of the terms "Indian" and "American Indian" argue that they have been in use for such a long period of time that many people have become accustomed to them and no longer consider them exonyms. Both terms are still widely used today. "American Indian" appears often in treaties between the United States and the indigenous peoples with whom they have been negotiating since the colonial period, and many federal, state and local laws also use it.[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversyIf your point is that some First nation's people are not offended and that lots of people use the term "Indian" I would agree with you. That does not mean it is not, the same way the N word was once used commonly and not all black people are offended by it. https://www.insider.com/native-american-offensive-racist-things-2020-1#im-not-indian-im-native-american-indigenous-or-first-nations-4https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/what-s-in-a-name-indian-native-aboriginal-or-indigenous-1.2784518Let me spin this around to you. What about calling native American's Indian's is not ignorant? You aren't reading what I wrote. "if you want to use that term because you don't think it is offensive I would suggest that it ignorance" I never expressed a desire to use the term. I specifically expressed that I think the term is likely offensive and I don't use it. You are starting with the conclusion and working backwards here. If the term is not offensive it's okay to use it. If the term is offensive then using it likely means you are ignorant. Saying you are ignorant because you use the term, prior to establishing that the term is offensive, is pointless. You are arguing with nobody. "If your point is that some First nation's people are not offended and that lots of people use the term "Indian" I would agree with you." That is not my point. My point is that people in the USA using the term "Indians" to refer to Native Americans in the USA is okay unless the Native Americans in the USA are not okay with it. Of course, it doesn't need to be 100% of Native Americans in the USA... but it should be more than say, 1 person. If you can point to a Tribe that has formally stated that they do not prefer people refer to them as Indians, then I think that's sufficient evidence, even if some other Tribes are okay with the term. I don't think it's hard to find or provide this evidence, I'm just calling your logic chain into question. You are wrong until you provide this evidence. Then you are right and we can stop discussing this.It bothers me when people get offended on behalf of other people, and it turns out those other people weren't even offended. I'm just asking you to show this is not the case. You may think the term "Indian" being incorrect from the getgo automatically makes the term offensive, but not all Native Americans agree with you, so at least show that some of them do (in the region of relevance given that you were addressing people from the USA when this was triggered). You are not choosing a reasonable hill to die on here. I do not use the term Indian to refer to Native Americans, or am I suggesting other people do that in the USA or elsewhere. edit: "Let me spin this around to you. What about calling native American's Indian's is not ignorant? " Answer: 99% of Native Americans in the USA aren't offended by it. Prove me wrong and you win. Perhaps you missed that I am of Native American descent, I have American Cousin's many that are full blood and I guess I could get them to create accounts log in and tell you they don't like it. If I seem flippant it is because it is amazingly absurd for me to have to prove to you why a term so BLATANTLY rooted in racism is offensive. But I guess here goes. First lets start with Danglar's use, he had the brave general defending America from the "Indian's". In this context it is obviously racist since it was the people he is calling "american's" many of who at that time were likely born in Europe or first Generation "american" defening "their" land. I hope you can see the problem with that. Next I looked up Native American studies in the US. While I did see a couple called Native American and American Indian's studies, I saw none called "Indian's". Yes American Indian is less offensive, I don't prefer it but I will say it is better. However most did not. I put forward that if it was unoffensive to 99% of First Nation's people in the USA that they would All be called Indian studies, none were and most were called what I would deem non offensive terms. http://www.ou.edu/cas/nashttps://www.colorado.edu/cnais/https://www.uaf.edu/indigenous/https://english.gmu.edu/programs/la-minor-la-nais?_ga=1.19843320.1764790523.1451302302https://native-american.dartmouth.edu/http://www.law.msu.edu/indigenous/https://nas.unm.edu/https://nau.edu/ais/https://nacc.stanford.edu/https://www.cser.columbia.edu/indigenoushttps://liberalarts.utexas.edu/nais/Here is a quote for you. How I loathe the term "indian." ... "Indian" is used to sell things--souveniers, cigars, cigarettes, gasoline,cars.... "Indian" is a figment of the white man's imagination Lenore Keeshig-Tobias, Ojibwe 1990 She is Canadian but I like the quote, and as a Canadian I tend to know more of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenore_Keeshig-TobiasThis is also Canadian, but it goes through the various titles, I'll get to more American stuff shortly. The term “Indian” refers to the legal identity of a First Nations person who is registered under the Indian Act. The term “Indian” should be used only when referring to a First Nations person with status under the Indian Act, and only within its legal context. Aside from this specific legal context, the term “Indian” in Canada is considered outdated and may be considered offensive due to its complex and often idiosyncratic colonial use in governing identity through this legislation and a myriad of other distinctions (i.e., “treaty” and “non-treaty,” etc.). In the United States, however, the term “American Indian” and “Native Indian” are both in current and common usage.
You may also hear some First Nations people refer to themselves as “Indians.” While there are many reasons for an individual to self-identify as such, this may be a deliberate act on their part to position and present themselves as someone who is defined by federal legislation.
“Indian Band” is also a legal term under the Indian Act to denote a grouping of status Indians. (For more information on this, see our section on bands.) https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/terminology/Here is a article about 5 Native American's describing which terms they prefer. Not surprisingly most prefer to be called by their specific tribe but then often as Native American. Some of them say American Indian is fine, None say Indian. Here are some quotes. “We aren’t Indian. When other people [non-Natives] say ‘Indian’ it’s because they don’t know any better. And sometimes it comes out of ignorance.” She states that when she hears non-Natives use the term “Indian” it reminds her of how people use the term “redskin” out of ignorance. “Some people just don’t know the history of the name and they think it is just the name of a football team.” She states that non-Natives should refer to us as Native American or indigenous.” Waln also said he feels the term ‘indigenous’ is an acceptable blanket statement of our people. He deters from terms such as ‘Sioux’ or ‘Indian,’ but knows others who use these terms. “I feel every Native should have the choice. Those conversations we need to have within ourselves, and it’s not for the outside to know everything about us or be involved in those types of conversations. Because those are for us.” “For most of my life, I didn’t understand I was attached to this amazing ancestry. That I came from such strong people because a lot of what media tells us is, as Native people, we are dumb, cheap, less than, we’re savages, we’re alcoholics, and I internalized that as a kid because that is the environment I grew up in. When I speak to Native kids now, I remind them that they come from greatness. Greatness is inside all of us. That myth that Natives are dumb, primitive, savages, even shy, it’s all a lie! I call myself Sicangu Lakota because to me that name is strong, that name is old; it predates the United States.”
Waln also said he feels the term ‘indigenous’ is an acceptable blanket statement of our people. He deters from terms such as ‘Sioux’ or ‘Indian,’ but knows others who use these terms. “I feel every Native should have the choice. Those conversations we need to have within ourselves, and it’s not for the outside to know everything about us or be involved in those types of conversations. Because those are for us.” When asked which references she feels most comfortable with she says, “I prefer indigenous, but I am comfortable with ‘Native American’ or ‘American Indian’. The reason I prefer indigenous is because being indigenous means you are of a place, one place on earth, which is unique to you. It identifies our peoples well because we referred to ourselves as from a place or location.” Here is another. https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/native/homepage.htmA common belief in the contemporary United States, often unspoken and unconscious, implies that everyone has a right to use Indians as they see fit; everyone owns them. Indianness is a national heritage; it is a fount for commercial enterprise; it is a costume one can put on for a party, a youth activity, or a sporting event. This sense of entitlement, this expression of white privilege, has a long history, manifesting itself in national narratives, popular entertainments, marketing schemes, sporting worlds, and self-improvement regimes. C. Richard King, redskins: Insult and Brand (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2016), 100. It really did not take the long to find all of this. I find it very strange that you ask me to prove something is offensive but maybe you don't know any Native American's or have any around where you live. I hope this has shown you that 99% of native American's would rather not be called Indian's. If it does not than so be it. I'm not looking to "win", I'm looking for people to not not be ignorant and think about the terms that they use, what they mean and who they may offend unintentionally. he easiest way to think of why it is offensive is think about where it came from, and what happened to those people when it was commonly used. Something being used commonly does not make it right, every word that you would consider awful likely had a time when it was considered alright and was commonly used as well. And on top of that context matters, so when danglar's chooses to use it the way he did, as if the "indians" were in the wrong for attacking the poor innocent American's it becomes clearer. It is also pretty obvious of Danglar's thinks on these sorts of matters from his many awful posts. I did not realize that you were of Native American descent. Had I known that I would have broached the issue with you more delicately. I have met Native Americans in the USA who did not object to the use of the term Indian. I have not met Native Americans in the USA who object to the use of the term (in my presence so I was aware). I expect you know way more people of Native American descent than I do, and you even said some of them are in the USA, so your personal anecdotes may be more valuable than I originally gave them credit for. It still seems surprisingly challenging to find widespread evidence that dislike of the term "Indian" is prevalent among Native Americans in the USA. For many other terms, it's super easy to find the evidence. As I was trying to say before, "why" the term should be considered offensive is only relevant if the Native Americans are actually offended. Given that you've likely personally been offended by this issue before, I'll recognize that if either of us did more digging we'd surely find enough evidence that we can move past the "do Native Americans in the USA even dislike the term being used in the USA." Also, if Americans saying "Indian" were only offensive to Native Americans in Canada, a good argument can still be made that Americans should stop using the term, even if the USA-based Native Americans are indifferent. If I go back and read a couple of your earlier posts as, "As someone of Native American descent, I find the term insulting because..." then it makes a lot more sense to appeal to the logic behind why the term would be considered insensitive or ignorant. I can appreciate that, I don't bring it up a lot because I am not full blood and really don't experience the systematic racism that most do. Most people who look at me in the summer think I'm Hungarian or something and in the winter no one knows. In the reading I just did on the American sites there seems to be a fair amount of acceptance for the use of "American Indian" but I didn't read anything about Indian. I get that they are very similar but from those I read it mattered. To be honest, I was a little bit taken aback when noticing how often "Indian" is used pretty much interchangeably with Native here. Plenty of tribe-operated services and industries here use "Indian" (without an "American" prefix) in titles. It seems just as common as being titled after the tribe which runs it. The first time I heard someone say that they would have to go to the Indian hospital for something, I thought it a poor choice of words, until realizing that there is a big building called "Indian Hospital" down the road. The trail of tears ended around here, and I would think that the tribes relocated here would be the first to speak out against an incorrect label forced upon them, but most of the natives I have met here recognize it as just a name. Most Indigenous peoples in my circles would prefer anyone wondering what to call them to just not opine on whatever they needed to know the right word for because they know it is going to be uninformed. People's preference (beyond the Tribe part which is pretty ubiquitous) definitely has a political influence. "Boarding Schools" or "Indian Residential Schools" are also representative of longstanding efforts to literally beat that preference out of people. In some ways the prevalence of "Indian" or " American Indian" is evidence of the effectiveness of that effort.
This makes sense, and seems close to my gut reaction to seeing "Indian Hospital," which is simply: this looks weird and I'm genuinely surprised that nobody has a problem with it. The reasons for that, you may be on the right track for.
I don't think it's going to remain okay, and do believe that the word is in its twilight years.
|
This entire "statue discussion" is pretty blatantly stupid.
From both sides, actually.
Statues are entirely pointless. There's no good reason to ever build one - we have other systems to worship or honour people if deserved. In fact, as someone else mentioned, if you dig deep enough, you'll always find some kind of dirt on someone that would justify removing a statue if you really wanted to. You could even easily justify tearing down a statue of Mother Theresa herself (and some people in this thread should support that if they don't want to come off as hypocrite).
Tear every single statue down. History is in the books. Once the US stops trying to rewrite their history (..), a book is all you need to grasp atrocities and accomplishments of your country. I'm german, i should know.
In regards to columbus: tear it down. Not because of GHs absolutely stupid and intellectually dishonest "argument", but because statues are stupid.
I honestly don't understand why people actually still argue with GH. Nothing he says is in good faith. Starting from the very fact that it's quite disputed whether or not the allegations are true or fabricated by Bobadilla for personal gain and revenge. So at best you have the possibility that he "cut off hands", at a time where cutting off hands was common practice to punish thieves, or flogged for not working hard enough. Women were punished with scold's bridle for gossiping. So even if it were true that columbus did what you clearly accept as a fact for some reason, it was entirely in line with what was happening back then everywhere. In fact, another tidbit left out by GH and Mohdoo (gee, wonder why) is the fact that he didn't just "go to prison for his tyranny". He went to prison for the allegations, but was subsequently released 6 weeks(!!!) later, all his assets and wealth restored and then had his fourth voyage paid for by the king. Guess that wasn't important to mention, not fitting the narrative and all.
And in the end, nothing of it matters, because we shouldn't have statues of "people". The russian mouse statue, i mean.. it's cute. And i love animals, so i can get behind that. It's also not something that you should learn by reading history books (that aren't fucked with by "the winner"). That gets a pass. But apart from that? Remove every single one of "persons of interest".
In regards to the term "Indian", as a sidenote, people in germany call native americans "Indianer". And people from india "Inder". Native american translates to "Amerikanischer Ureinwohner", bit of a mouthful, so usually we stick with "Indianer" because that's a specific term for, well, native americans. You can't mistake an indian (india) for an indian (native american) in german.
Back to statues: in germany last week we erected a statue of.. Lenin. I know, a few people got moist now, but this just shows how absolutely moronic the entire discussion is. The "left" is screeching at statues of people who defended slavery when slavery was normal, rightfully so - but then goes ahead and puts Lenin on a plinth.
As a reminder: Lenin is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. I know, there's people here getting moist yet again thinking of the good old times where it apparently was okay to kill hundreds of thousands people because they dared to think that "owning stuff" is nice, but that's just your insanely warped perception, not actual reality.
What about statues for american soldiers? Be it generals or the grunts? You do realise that they actively targeted civilians, millions of them? That they mass-raped tens of thousands of women in france and germany? No, they weren't the only ones doing it. Neither trying to eradicate a population nor raping. Does that excuse it? If it does excuse it, why aren't columbus' actions excused, who didn't do anything different than anyone else? I know that especially soldiers in the US are basically untouchable when it comes to criticism and hold a pretty ridiculous "holy" status, but these are facts. This happened, and everyone knew it, too. Though i doubt you read those parts in american history books, whereas committed atrocities by all sides (vast majority though is about our own) are taught extensively in germany, to learn from it. Admittedly, we still have knuckleheads who think shouting "Sieg Heil" is a statement or something, but at least we're trying, and act against it (you go to jail for giving the hitler greeting).
Again. Statues are stupid. You can argue for and against every single one. Start educating your people, then you don't need statues that factually don't teach you jack shit anyway. I'm sure there's harmless statues that either side doesn't mind because "he didn't own slaves" , but also "didn't go to a gay pride parade" or something, where you only get fringe-groups or professionally offended people screeching about it - tear those down too. Use the space for a small tree with a few benches where people can read. Hell, even a food truck makes more sense.
And most importantly, the entire discussion about statues just goes away, and the discussion about americas past/history can actually take off - and that's the only way you can actually proceed forward without already seeding the next generation of racists.
Lastly, while i despise nettles, i absolutely can't blame him for not participating in a discussion here. I don't either, since there's no discussion actually taking place. The second one of a few select people steps into a discussion, it goes back to communism, abolish the police, violence is great, burning a flag should put people in jail, etc pp. I actively read the thread every few days, mainly to kill time, but i haven't seen an actual fruitful debate here in a long time. Every single one always boils down to the same shit.
|
EPT
