|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Cowboys and ?????
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
This is likely to be another cross-Pond misunderstanding, but I thought it was deeply offensive to use the term "Red Indian" these days. That is was a term on a par with the N word. Instead, I've been careful to use the term "Native American", even though it doesn't exactly trip off the tongue. However, I've read a few novels American novels recently that used the term "American Indian". Am I reading the wrong sort of novel? Is the term only offensive if "Red" is used? Or am I deeply confused (situation normal)?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
I've never seen "Red" Indian, just Indian or maybe American Indian if the writer thinks a reader might think he is talking about folks from India.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
"Indians" is still pretty common in the United States, I think, though I can't vouch for it being entirely politically correct. I hear it's much less acceptable in Canada. "Native American" is definitely more polite, so I tend to opt for that term.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
"Native American" is the politically correct term (and the one that appears on census forms and surveys), but all the Native Americans I know say "Indian" most of the time or use the tribal name. "Red Indian" is strictly a British usage--it was never current here, probably because Americans had no great need to distinguish between peoples indigenous to North America and those from the Indian subcontinent.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
"Indians" is still pretty common in the United States, I think, though I can't vouch for it being entirely politically correct. I hear it's much less acceptable in Canada. "Native American" is definitely more polite, so I tend to opt for that term.
"Indian" doesn't appear to bother the local tribe, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
I do a lot of editing in Canadian history, social studies, and politics -- so terminology for North America's indigenous peoples comes up a lot.
In Canada, "Indian" is legal terminology for those who are recognized as "status Indians" under the federal Indian Act. The Indian Act dates back to the late 19th century, so its terminology is dated. Canada's Constitution of 1982 refers to First Nations, Metis, and Inuit as Canada's Aboriginal peoples. (Metis and Inuit are not considered Indian under the Act).
I can't comment much on terminology used in the United States, but I see "Indian" used by American authors -- there was one historian contributing an essay to a Canadian volume who was quite adamant that we not use the Canadian terminology in his chapter -- IIRC he grudgingly allowed "Native". "Amerindian" is an accepted anthropological term.
However, having been trained in "acceptable" terminology at the publishing house where I then worked, I was surprised when I attended a powwow at a nearby First Nation in 2008 and heard the MC of the event use "Indian". Perhaps because of its still-current legal meaning, perhaps as a way of claiming their historical identity and all the baggage that goes with it, some (many?) Canadian First Nations seem comfortable with the term.
"Red Indian" is a definite no-no.
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I have heard it argued that "American Indian" is more PC than "Native American" because there are people native to the US who are not Native Americans and if two Native Americans leave the US, their descendants will be Native Americans who are not native to the US (although the first generation if children at least would be US citizens. I am not sure why "First Nations" never caught on here like it did in Canada
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I don't think there's anything wrong with "Indian". As for "Red Indian", I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that either. As someone mentioned earlier, it's probably more an English thing to distinguish from Indian Indians. A lot of PC stuff is bollocks, anyway. A good example is the use of "Inuit" instead of "Eskimo" but if I'm not mistaken not all Eskimos are Inuits.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I am not sure why "First Nations" never caught on here like it did in Canada
Maybe they weren't. The Cherokee have legends of "Moon-eyed people" who were already living here when the Cherokee arrived and there are some things that the Cherokee claim were already here when they arrived, such as Judaculla Rock and a particular wall at Fort Mtn State Park in N Georgia.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY GWAI
I say Native American by default, but I do know some Natives who prefer American Indian, and know no one who finds it offensive, so I conclude it's acceptable too.
Apparently, in 1995 the U.S. Census Bureau conducted interviews with people of indigenous descent. Of those who expressed a preference, 50% preferred "American Indian" as a term; 37% preferred "Native American". So sayeth the Fount of All Knowledge
I was actually a bit surprised to read that. Preferences may have changed (1995 was a long time ago now...) but I've always experienced Native American as the default and preferred term.
[ 23. May 2013, 19:48: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't think there's anything wrong with "Indian". As for "Red Indian", I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that either. As someone mentioned earlier, it's probably more an English thing to distinguish from Indian Indians. A lot of PC stuff is bollocks, anyway. A good example is the use of "Inuit" instead of "Eskimo" but if I'm not mistaken not all Eskimos are Inuits.
There are better ways to distinguish North American Indians from residents of India than referring to their supposed skin colour (most NA aboriginals don't have "red" skin tones anyway).
Those who call themselves Eskimo -- the Yupik and Inupiat of Alaska -- do not consider themselves Iniut. AIUI they speak a very different language and belong to a different cultural group. In Canada and most other countries of the circumpolar region, "Eskimo" is considered pejorative and inaccurate.
If political correctness means not calling people insulting names, then, yes, using "Inuit" and not using "Red Indian" is politically correct -- like not using insulting terms for any other ethnocultural group you care to name.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Yes, this a complicated one. It is certainly very odd indeed to hear "American Indian" in Canada, which seems a misstep in two ways.
I've noticed that different cultural groups will either use or avoid the term "Indian". People from more isolated northern places may use Indian, and so might some who understand the origin of the term First Nations in British Columbia (if that's where it is from). The additional problem arises with Metís people, who may object to either term.
A common way of referring to self on the prairies seems to be "treaty" as in "I'm treaty", meaning "status Indian" per Lothiriel's information. The converse as well "I'm not treaty". The other one, perhaps more local again, is to hear people be more specific and say "I'm Cree", Dene, Saulteaux etc.
The cowboys part of this is interesting as well. They are generally from Alberta, descended from Americans, and come out of the closet during the Stampede. I personally think the best part of the outfit is the belt buckles.
The one never heard any more is "Eskimo", except for the Edmonton Eskimos of the Canadian Football League.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
When we go to an Atlanta Braves game we will only do the Tomahawk Chop with one hand. Back around 1991 the chief of the Eastern Band took exception to Jane Fonda using both hands to do the chop. He said that was a double chop, which meant chop-chop, and it sounded too Oriental for the Cherokee.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I am not sure why "First Nations" never caught on here like it did in Canada
Maybe they weren't. The Cherokee have legends of "Moon-eyed people" who were already living here when the Cherokee arrived and there are some things that the Cherokee claim were already here when they arrived, such as Judaculla Rock and a particular wall at Fort Mtn State Park in N Georgia.
"First" doesn't necessarily mean literally the earliest inhabitants, but those who were here before European contact. It's pretty well agreed among archaeologists and anthropologists that NA natives arrived from Asia at least 12,000 years ago, and the various groups have wandered about a fair bit in the meantime, so hardly anybody is where they were originally.
"First Nations" might not have stuck in Canada if it had not be codified in the Constitution. I've seen something of a shift away from that term in non-legal contexts toward the more encompassing "indigenous" and "aboriginal". "First Nation" is still roughly equivalent to "status Indian" for most purposes, and leaves out a lot of people.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
"First" doesn't necessarily mean literally the earliest inhabitants, but those who were here before European contact. It's pretty well agreed among archaeologists and anthropologists that NA natives arrived from Asia at least 12,000 years ago, and the various groups have wandered about a fair bit in the meantime, so hardly anybody is where they were originally.
"First Nations" might not have stuck in Canada if it had not be codified in the Constitution. I've seen something of a shift away from that term in non-legal contexts toward the more encompassing "indigenous" and "aboriginal". "First Nation" is still roughly equivalent to "status Indian" for most purposes, and leaves out a lot of people.
Right. What is interesting to me about it is that what the Cherokee describe sound a little bit like hobbits.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The Cree people on the Canadian prairies originated in the Great Lakes region and moved west over time, with other indigenous groups moving north and south, and there were certainly some wars.
I recall a Saskatchewan Lake, with Prince Albert National Park, which has a series of lakes called "The Heart Lakes", with the original name being "The Hanging Heart Lakes" to commemorate the hanging of the hearts of one group on the trees to warn them not to stray further into the second group's territory. So Hobbits they weren't.
I suspect that most of the peoples of the earth have been well prepared to defend themselves and make war. The cowboys & ?? being just another iteration in America of a common theme.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Thank you all for your erudite replies. So the indigenous peoples are happy to call themselves "Indians" even though they've never been near India? That surprises me; I'd assumed that the term was offensive because it is so Euro-centric.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Thank you all for your erudite replies. So the indigenous peoples are happy to call themselves "Indians" even though they've never been near India? That surprises me; I'd assumed that the term was offensive because it is so Euro-centric.
I akways thought "Indian" meant "indegenous".
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Thank you all for your erudite replies. So the indigenous peoples are happy to call themselves "Indians" even though they've never been near India? That surprises me; I'd assumed that the term was offensive because it is so Euro-centric.
The West Indian cricket team don't seem that bothered. I guess when you're talking about native rights in North America the Euro-centric ship has pretty much sailed.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Right. What is interesting to me about it is that what the Cherokee describe sound a little bit like hobbits.
That's what struck me -- the "moon-eyed" people. Were they denoting eye-shape? I know nothing about the Cherokee, but allegedly have a distant forbear who was Abenaki, some of whom seem to have a slightly Asiatic cast to their eye-folds. Of course, with the near annihilation of that tribe, along with much intermarriage following contact with European settlers, eye-shapes probably lost any indigenous characteristics long ago.
Do you know more of the description beyond what you supplied?
[ 23. May 2013, 22:11: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ArachnidinElmet
Shipmate
# 17346
|
Posted
There was a programme on BBC4 not long since, Rich Hall's Inventing the Indian, a semi-comic documentary about the depiction of Native Americans in culture (usually by other people, particularly Hollywood). One of the things he discussed, was that the term 'Native American' may annoy (more than offend) people whose families had been living on the same land since before America existed.
--------------------
'If a pleasant, straight-forward life is not possible then one must try to wriggle through by subtle manoeuvres' - Kafka
Posts: 1887 | From: the rhubarb triangle | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
As the thread suggests, you will have more than one answer possible. In my days drafting stuff for the minions of Our Glorious Sovereign, our rule was that First Peoples encompassed everybody, including First Nations (which included Status and Non-Status Indians), Métis, and Inuit. Those with whom I attended school many years ago (Mohawks of the Six Nations Confederacy) called themselves Indians, and still do. Those who dislike the term were always welcome to discuss it after school.
Correct usage has much to do with the exact context and one's intent. Some US-trained/ influenced academics tried to introduce the bizarre (IMHO) term Canadian Native Americans, but it either confused people who thought it meant US immigrants, or annoyed aboriginal figures who perhaps thought it was an attempt to sideline them.
That First Nations got written into the Constitution would suggest that it will be around for a while.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
When we go to an Atlanta Braves game we will only do the Tomahawk Chop with one hand. Back around 1991 the chief of the Eastern Band took exception to Jane Fonda using both hands to do the chop. He said that was a double chop, which meant chop-chop, and it sounded too Oriental for the Cherokee.
Oriental is thankfully falling out of use. Asian is the preferred term unless you are talking about salads.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Problems like this occur when people lump disparate groups into one classification. When, instead of asking for, and then using, a group's name for itself, a different one is invented.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
That's what struck me -- the "moon-eyed" people. Were they denoting eye-shape?
From what I've gathered, it appears to be because of the size of their eyes and that they only came out at night. During the daylight they were as blind as bats so they stayed in their underground dwellings dug out of mounds until it was dark. Even a full moon was too much light for them. They were described as white, bearded and small. Some believe they were descendants of Madoc.
quote:
allegedly have a distant forbear who was Abenaki, some of whom seem to have a slightly Asiatic cast to their eye-folds.
It seems to be generally accepted that the Indians came here from Asia a long time ago but I've never noticed anything about Cherokee eyes other than being brown. But then, the folks who came here to North America from Asia may have come from different areas and some could have had eyes similar to what we generally see in the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese, but I've never seen, heard or read anything before now about eye shapes of any Indians. But then, I just recalled reading in some Louis L'Amour shoot 'em up about some historians having reasons to believe that there were Asian traders who made it to the west coast of North America.
quote:
Do you know more of the description beyond what you supplied?
No. I first read about them some 40-45 years ago in an old local history book that belonged to my grandfather and never gave it much thought since until just a few years ago when my daughter's travel softball team had a couple of Cherokee on it and they were playing some tournaments in Cherokee. That, and thinking of things to google.
If you read this it probably tells more than what I recall from my grandfather's history book.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Thank you all for your erudite replies. So the indigenous peoples are happy to call themselves "Indians" even though they've never been near India? That surprises me; I'd assumed that the term was offensive because it is so Euro-centric.
In the casual racism of my youth, "Indian" was a pejorative adjective approximating the word "ghetto" - "Indian luggage" referred to green garbage bags.
Now "Indian" is considered a reclaimed word for some, rather like "queer". It would not be offensive for insiders to use - see this restaurant's reference to "Indian tacos" made with bannock - but outsiders would be unwise to use it as a descriptor. A comedian might use it to describe his own people, as Chris Rock uses the n-word, but outside of the group, not a good idea.
So, a quick subjective taxonomy:
Red Indian: offensive. Just don't.
Indian: see above, possibly offensive. Usually inaccurate too.*
American Indian: acceptable in the United States but not Canada.
Half-blood/full-blood/any percentage blood description: seems to be acceptable in the US, but will get you a "WTF" look in Canada.
First Nations: acceptable and widely used in Canada.
Aboriginal: acceptable and widely used in Canada.
*"Indian" is sometimes used as a pan-nation word, rather like "European", and with similar inaccuracies built in. What do Europeans eat? How do they worship? These naïve questions will get you different answers based on which nation you are talking about. The same is true of First Nations. It's as hard to generalize Haida and Mi'kmaq as it to generalize Norwegians and Neapolitans.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
LEaf writes: quote:
Half-blood/full-blood/any percentage blood description: seems to be acceptable in the US, but will get you a "WTF" look in Canada.
About ten years ago, a moderately prominent academic made a research contract proposal using both half-blood and half-breed in a totally non-ironical and serious manner. The review committee sat around in shock (WTF was likely on our minds if not on our lips) as it was read to us: our finance clerk (Swampy Cree and married to an Assyrian) sat back and said that she hadn't heard that one since she was in Grade XI.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
When we go to an Atlanta Braves game we will only do the Tomahawk Chop with one hand. Back around 1991 the chief of the Eastern Band took exception to Jane Fonda using both hands to do the chop. He said that was a double chop, which meant chop-chop, and it sounded too Oriental for the Cherokee.
Oriental is thankfully falling out of use. Asian is the preferred term unless you are talking about salads.
"Oriental" was the term used by Chief Taylor in this article. Asian is more understandable to me. When I hear of the Orient the first thing that crosses my mind is the train to Istanbul.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I live in the Pacific Northwest but I have never heard the term "Red Indian" What I have heard is "Redskin." Some sports teams used to use the term, but it is falling out of favor.
This is from wikipedia:
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the term "redskin" came from the reddish skin color of some Native Americans, as in the terms red Indian and red man. The OED cites instances of its usage in English dating back to the 17th century and cites a use of red in reference to skin color from 1587. Multiple theories fight for prominence as to the true historical origin of the word. One theory, mentioned above, is that the term was meant as merely a physical indicator, similar to the words "white" and "black" for Caucasians and Africans, respectively. Another theory holds that it was first used by Native Americans during the 1800s as a way of distinguishing themselves from the ever-growing white population. Another theory is that the term "Red Indian" originated to describe the Beothuk people of Newfoundland who painted their bodies with red ochre, and was then generalized to North American indigenous people in general.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Half-blood/full-blood/any percentage blood description: seems to be acceptable in the US
Yes, it is. That's become very important around here since being an official Cherokee can get you a cut of casino earnings.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Half-blood/full-blood/any percentage blood description: seems to be acceptable in the US
Yes, it is. That's become very important around here since being an official Cherokee can get you a cut of casino earnings.
Official status is important north of the border too, just described differently. As no prophet and Lothiriel said, "treaty" and "status" are the usual nomenclature. Descriptions in terms of blood would be thought weird, with icky Aryan connotations.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Half-blood/full-blood/any percentage blood description: seems to be acceptable in the US
Yes, it is. That's become very important around here since being an official Cherokee can get you a cut of casino earnings.
Official status is important north of the border too, just described differently. As no prophet and Lothiriel said, "treaty" and "status" are the usual nomenclature. Descriptions in terms of blood would be thought weird, with icky Aryan connotations.
It isn't just for Indians that blood ratios are used, though. Hearing someone say they are one quarter Irish or Scottish, for example, is just telling me where their grandmother or grandfather comes from.
As I understand it, each tribe in the US sets their own terms for who is considered a part of it. Here is a link to the application for enrollment as a member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee. The Eastern Band are the ones who stayed here and didn't walk all the way to Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Winnow
Apprentice
# 5656
|
Posted
Many years ago, while living in the Pacific Northwest, I was talking with the wife of the hereditary chief of a certain tribe about my own Indian heritage (Blackfoot). She looked me full in the eyes and said "yes, you're Indian -- I can see it in your eyes. It's in the eyes." -- I'm not sure what she meant by that exactly, but the above comments give me more to think about.
Posts: 34 | From: Idaho | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I live in the Pacific Northwest but I have never heard the term "Red Indian" What I have heard is "Redskin." Some sports teams used to use the term, but it is falling out of favor.
Well, there's the NFL's Washington Redskins. The baseball team that was there when I was a kid was the Washington Senators, but the team there now is the Washington Nationals. Evidently, being called a Senator is just too insulting and beyond the pale.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
"Redskin" is purely a racial slur, as bad as "nigger." There are quite a few newspapers that won't print the name of the Washington DC football team anymore. It's shameful that the team owners cling to it.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It isn't just for Indians that blood ratios are used, though. Hearing someone say they are one quarter Irish or Scottish, for example, is just telling me where their grandmother or grandfather comes from.
<Tangent> Perhaps this is common American usage. In my context I cannot recall people parsing their heritage using fractions! <end Tangent>
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Perhaps this is common American usage.
Oooh, yes it is.
[ 24. May 2013, 05:16: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
"Redskin" is purely a racial slur, as bad as "nigger." There are quite a few newspapers that won't print the name of the Washington DC football team anymore. It's shameful that the team owners cling to it.
I can't imagine anyone having such a name for a new team but, according to polling, folks are still cool with Washington keeping the name "Redskins".
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Perhaps this is common American usage.
Oooh, yes it is.
Except on St. Patrick's Day, when anyone who has ever been in the same room as a pint of Guinness is 100% Irish.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It isn't just for Indians that blood ratios are used, though. Hearing someone say they are one quarter Irish or Scottish, for example, is just telling me where their grandmother or grandfather comes from.
<Tangent> Perhaps this is common American usage. In my context I cannot recall people parsing their heritage using fractions! <end Tangent>
Strange; it seemed as if everybody I went to school with was "one eighth Cherokee" or "one sixteenth Creek" or "three sixteenths Chickasaw." The fractional system was extremely common—to the point that I'm a bit surprised it isn't elsewhere!
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
The fractions are a particularly American thing. I sometimes wonder if it isn't to do with needing to find/define identity because of coming from a relatively young country.
Certainly when I hear certain individuals of my acquaintance saying "I'm a quarter German, and a quarter English, and an eighth Scottish…" I have to work hard to restrain myself from snorting and saying "No, no, you're really not. Believe me, you're 100% American." Because while these people may have ancestors from those places, culturally they have very, very little in common with your average European.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bob Two-Owls
Shipmate
# 9680
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
"Redskin" is purely a racial slur, as bad as "nigger."
I introduced a friend from India to a senior member of the Scout Fellowship once. My friend did look a bit like a hollywood Native American with the braided hair and everything so the old buffer greeted him with "so are you a red indian then?". My friend was perplexed at this and just said "I'm from Baisi" in a thick Bihar accent. The old scouter raised his eyebrows and said "a beige indian eh? never heard of that one".
As for fractional heritage, being a quarter Irish, a quarter Welsh and half Scottish I always refer to myself as English
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 1262 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Canada's a pretty young country too but I don't think we fractionize here as much as Americans do.
I tend to think of "Indian" as one of those terms that it's OK for people to use to describe themselves and others in their group, if they choose to, but that would sound offensive coming from an outsider. I would say First Nations or aboriginal, or more likely, if talking about specific people, say Mi'qmaq or Innu or Inuit (the three groups we're most likely to encounter where I live). "Native" or "native status" also seems to be an acceptable term around this part of Canada, where lots of very very Anglo-seeming people are parsing their ancestry down to the great-great grandparents because of some advantages of having that status.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
The fractions are a particularly American thing. I sometimes wonder if it isn't to do with needing to find/define identity because of coming from a relatively young country.
More likely a hangover from slavery. Noit being more than 1/32 black used to really matter a lot.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I avoid to use the word índio in Brazil. Luckily, the word indígena is widespread. Often, I call people by their tribe/nation. For example, I have a neighbour who is a Fulniô.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
The fractions are a particularly American thing. I sometimes wonder if it isn't to do with needing to find/define identity because of coming from a relatively young country.
Certainly when I hear certain individuals of my acquaintance saying "I'm a quarter German, and a quarter English, and an eighth Scottish…" I have to work hard to restrain myself from snorting and saying "No, no, you're really not. Believe me, you're 100% American." Because while these people may have ancestors from those places, culturally they have very, very little in common with your average European.
More like have much, much more in common with Europe than Europeans will care to admit.
[ 24. May 2013, 18:41: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ArachnidinElmet
Shipmate
# 17346
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It isn't just for Indians that blood ratios are used, though. Hearing someone say they are one quarter Irish or Scottish, for example, is just telling me where their grandmother or grandfather comes from.
<Tangent> Perhaps this is common American usage. In my context I cannot recall people parsing their heritage using fractions! <end Tangent>
That's interesting. I've heard it quite a bit in the UK too, and have used it myself in some conversations (I'm a Heinz 57).
--------------------
'If a pleasant, straight-forward life is not possible then one must try to wriggle through by subtle manoeuvres' - Kafka
Posts: 1887 | From: the rhubarb triangle | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eigon
Shipmate
# 4917
|
Posted
I've always thought of myself as 1/4 Scottish, too (with a dash of Jewish somewhere along the line) - so it's not just an American thing. When I was a teenager finding out about the clan tartan I wanted to know if I was entitled to wear it.
--------------------
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
Posts: 3710 | From: Hay-on-Wye, town of books | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Fractions is not so much as an American thing, but it is written in most Tribal Constitutions that a person is a member of a tribe if he/she has as much as 1/4 tribal blood from the maternal side.
Just recently the Nootsak tribe in Northwestern Washington has informed 306 members that they have to prove they are indeed members of the tribe. These people claim they are members through their grandmother, but she is not listed in a 1942 tribal census.
There is some thought that this may have to do with racism since some of those members also have Filipino heritage.
This may end up going to the US Supreme Court for a final decision
http://nwpr.org/post/nooksack-tribes-seeks-cut-15-members
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
