Ship of Fools: Cowboys and ?????

Thread: Cowboys and ????? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025434

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

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)?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

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.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

"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.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

"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.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

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.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

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.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

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.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Red Indian would definitely be considered extremely offensive. 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.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

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.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

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 ]

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

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.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

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.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

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.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

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.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

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.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

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.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

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.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

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".

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

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 ]

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

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.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

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.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

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.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

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.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

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.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

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.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

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.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

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.

Posted by Winnow (# 5656) on :

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.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

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.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

"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.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

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>

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Perhaps this is common American usage.

Oooh, yes it is.

[ 24. May 2013, 05:16: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

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".

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

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!

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

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.

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

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]

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

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.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

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.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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 ]

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

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).

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :

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.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

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

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

"Indigenous" seems increasingly popular among my Indigenous Facebook friends. Older people mostly use Aboriginal and the other options listed above.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

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.

More like One-Drop. Fucking bastards.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Winnow:
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.

That's at least more scientific than my brothers' fantasy that we're part Cherokee because we don't have any hair on our legs.

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
"Indian luggage" referred to green garbage bags.

That made me feel so old. In West Virginia it was "Hillbilly luggage" and it was brown paper bags. Two or three bags was "A matched set of luggage."

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

To defend the Native American position, they are concerned that their heritage will eventually be assimilated into the larger culture. There are also the issues of land rights, hunting rights, and fishing rights. And, more recently, there are profits from tribal ventures such as the casino industry.

You may think this is archaic but among "The People" these are real issues.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

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".

No, it came from the original circumstances in which Christopher Columbus accidentally became the first European navigator to come across the Americas after it became accepted that the earth was not flat. He hypothesised that heading west from Europe would lead to a shorter trade route to India and the East Indies, and when it was finally worked out that he'd "found" a different place altogether it became conventional to have both the East Indies and the West Indies, and Indians and American Indians.

Any attempt to whitewash that and claim it's a diminutive of indigenous is just blatant revisionism.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Gramps49, your last post had so much wrong, it was like a recipe full of wrong: chopped wrong with roasted wrong, served with wrong sauce.

Let's start with your mistaken attempt to argue with a position that nobody was taking . Official status for first peoples is important, as you may have noted in this post:

quote:
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.

Just because this isn't described in blood fractions, as seems to be common in the US, it doesn't mean that determining official status for first peoples is unimportant in Canada. Indeed, it remains important for all the reasons that you noted in your post. No one thinks it's archaic or unnecessary. Put down the straw.

Now let's look at your terminology. Is it meaningful to speak of "THE Native American position"? Is there only one? I suspect that there are a multiplicity of positions, such that it would be as hard to name "THE position" among the various nations as "THE Christian position" on a given subject.

"Native American" is not a recognized term for Canada's First Nations people, of whom I was speaking. I guess you could try "Native North American" but that would be new terminology. "Native American" refers to a subset of citizens of the United States, which I suppose returns us to the OP's point: Not all terminology is acceptable everywhere.

So to attempt to defend the (?) Native American (?) position with which no one was arguing (?) is quite the container of ???'s.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I make no apologies for using the term Native American. While it is not usually used in Canada, it is commonly used in the United States. I am well aware Canadians prefer the term First Nations.

Nor will I apologize for the use of "the." Native American tribal laws are very keen on preserving the tribe for the reasons I outlined, and probably more. It is a common concern among all tribal governments, so I can safely say the position I outlined is more than "a" position.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I have had the occasion to take my afternoon espresso with some friends in town for the Marathon, of whom two were First Nations (one Kwakiutl and the other Oneida of the Six Nations)-- they tell me that Indian is a permissible usage, frequent among First Peoples, and can be used with propriety by others, depending on their intent-- Aboriginal is safer. They like band- or nation-specific usage (such as Deer Lake Cree or Algonquin of Barrier Lake) but felt that this is too difficult a concept for most outsiders. One liked Native, but found that this confused people, who assumed that it distinguished between immigrant and Canadian-born.

Both confirmed that any two other Aboriginal Canadians would likely provide me with a different opinion than theirs, but a respectful and courteous attitude would mean that offence would likely not be taken at almost any usage. They both advised against Eskimo as a word, although one of them has an Inuktitut-speaking Inuk friend who tells people that she speaks Eskimo, on the grounds that managers have difficulty with long words.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
They like band- or nation-specific usage (such as Deer Lake Cree or Algonquin of Barrier Lake) but felt that this is too difficult a concept for most outsiders.

There's really no reason for it to be difficult. If you go to Cherokee, that should be a strong hint that there are going to be Cherokee there.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I make no apologies for using the term Native American. While it is not usually used in Canada, it is commonly used in the United States. I am well aware Canadians prefer the term First Nations.

Hey, good for you! You learned something.

quote:
Nor will I apologize for the use of "the." Native American tribal laws are very keen on preserving the tribe for the reasons I outlined, and probably more. It is a common concern among all tribal governments, so I can safely say the position I outlined is more than "a" position.

The point about "the" was meant to alert you to the possibility of multiple positions within a very large heterogenous group in which you have claimed no membership. This is analogous to claiming, "The Jewish position is...", and about as accurate.

However, your insistence on refuting a point no one has made - tilting at windmills, so to speak - has reminded me of a happy memory of my young cousin's mispronunciation of "Donkey Oatie." So thank you for that.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
They like band- or nation-specific usage (such as Deer Lake Cree or Algonquin of Barrier Lake) but felt that this is too difficult a concept for most outsiders.
There's really no reason for it to be difficult. If you go to Cherokee, that should be a strong hint that there are going to be Cherokee there.

I quite agree, but was only reporting another perspective. If folks can figure out sports teams and their leagues in detail and precision, they should have no problem with precise identification of peoples. IMHO.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Oh really? My local band (Ma Preacher was the minister on the reserve for seven years, and I went to school with the band kids) is Ojibwa, specifically of the Mississauga tribe. However, if I say I am going to Mississauga, people will think I am going to the suburb west of Toronto containing a million people and Hazel McCallion (a mayor of some repute and who has been in office since before I was born).

Though the local reserves had the name first and are either owed royalties or intellectual property damages.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Augustine tA:

quote:
They both advised against Eskimo as a word

What's wrong with Eskimo? Why is it offensive?

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Augustine tA:
quote:
They both advised against Eskimo as a word
What's wrong with Eskimo? Why is it offensive?

From the Canadian government's guide to Aboriginal terminology:

quote:
"Eskimo" is the term once given to Inuit by European explorers and is now rarely used in Canada. It is derived from an Algonquin term meaning "raw meat eaters," and many people find the term offensive.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

When I was very important, I was at a private dinner when the topic of the word Eskimo arose. By good fortune, I was sitting beside Susan Aglukark (one of Canada's two decent evan singers), who shut us up by noting that, since we knew that the word Eskimo was unkind in its intent, we would have to ask ourselves why we would wish to use it.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie is a great book and Alexie has written at great length about the use of Indian vs Native American if you wish to read one Indian's opinion.

As for Eskimo, when my son, who is part native on his fathers's side, first heard the song "A White Christmas" at age five or so commented when they got to the line "dressed up as Eskimos" that the line was racist and he thought we shouldn't listen to it.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
They like band- or nation-specific usage (such as Deer Lake Cree or Algonquin of Barrier Lake) but felt that this is too difficult a concept for most outsiders.
There's really no reason for it to be difficult. If you go to Cherokee, that should be a strong hint that there are going to be Cherokee there.
I quite agree, but was only reporting another perspective. If folks can figure out sports teams and their leagues in detail and precision, they should have no problem with precise identification of peoples. IMHO.

Well, if you live in Oklahoma you are around so many different tribes that it is difficult to know who is from which tribe unless they announce it.

From my perspective if you refer by tribal/clan name you are most correct. If you need to refer to tribal peoples in general and not any specific tribe just try to be polite and you will be. I find the term Red Indian to be to close to Redskin to be comfortable with it.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
"Eskimo" is the term once given to Inuit by European explorers and is now rarely used in Canada. It is derived from an Algonquin term meaning "raw meat eaters," and many people find the term offensive.

I don't know if it is true, but I've read elsewhere that eating the meat raw is what helped them from getting scurvy. Besides, there probably isn't a whole lot of cooking fuel way up north, anyway, is there?

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
"Eskimo" is the term once given to Inuit by European explorers and is now rarely used in Canada. It is derived from an Algonquin term meaning "raw meat eaters," and many people find the term offensive.
I don't know if it is true, but I've read elsewhere that eating the meat raw is what helped them from getting scurvy. Besides, there probably isn't a whole lot of cooking fuel way up north, anyway, is there?

I don't know about raw meat preventing scurvy, but AFAIK the peoples of the far north would traditionally use animal fats for fuel.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't know if it is true, but I've read elsewhere that eating the meat raw is what helped them from getting scurvy. Besides, there probably isn't a whole lot of cooking fuel way up north, anyway, is there?

Its true. They could make fire OK, but yes, some kinds of meat, some times, are eaten raw, and it is good for your health of you eat no, or almost no, vegetables. Part of the Arctic survival kit they invented.

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
No, it came from the original circumstances in which Christopher Columbus accidentally became the first European navigator to come across the Americas after it became accepted that the earth was not flat. He hypothesised that heading west from Europe would lead to a shorter trade route to India and the East Indies, and when it was finally worked out that he'd "found" a different place altogether it became conventional to have both the East Indies and the West Indies, and Indians and American Indians.

Oh its much sillier than that! No-one seriously beleived the world was flat in the 15th century. They knew it was round and they had a pretty good idea how big it was and where the various countries were on the globe. And they had for over a thousand years. The standard late ancient and early medieaveal work on astronomy and geography, Ptolemy's Almagest has sort-of believeable locations for some places in Asia. And Europeans had traveeled there by land as well. So the official line was that you couldn't sail to China the "wrong way round" in the ships that they had at the time. Because it was too far away - they knew where China was, they knew where Spain was, and they knew how much food and water they could take on board. (Long distance ocean voyages without landfall didn't become common for maybe another century, and they remained horrifically dangerous till about the 1740s)

But Columbus thought the standard ideas were all wrong. He had this looney theory that the world was much smaller than it in fact is. So he thought China was somewhere just the other side of the Azores. So he went off looking for Asia, and hit somewhere else entirely because his maps were wrong, not because they were right.

Columbus was just aboiut the word navigator in history. He went to Cuba and thought he'd found Japan. Seriously.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Lothiriel, many thanks for the explanation of "Eskimo". I suppose that "raw meat eater" carried the connotation of being ignorant and savage, and was therefore intended as an insult.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Lothiriel, many thanks for the explanation of "Eskimo". I suppose that "raw meat eater" carried the connotation of being ignorant and savage, and was therefore intended as an insult.

Does eating sushi makes one an ignorant savage, too? If someone eats some of their meat raw, they probably have their reasons and saying it as an insult shows the ignorance of the one trying to be insulting, not the "Eskimo". If it is just a statement of fact, like saying someone eating sushi is eating raw fish, then fine.

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
...and saying it as an insult shows the ignorance of the one trying to be insulting, ...

Isn't that the case with most insults? Doesn't stop it being hurtful if it's directed at you.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

I accept all you say, Mere Nick - I was trying to explain to myself why "raw meat eater" should be an insult. Anyone for steak tartare?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Fundamentally, any difference in culture can be used to create insults. "Garlic eater" can be insulting to different people depending on where you are.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Fundamentally, any difference in culture can be used to create insults. "Garlic eater" can be insulting to different people depending on where you are.

Or, indeed, "cheese-eating surrender monkey..."

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

This thread reminds me of an old episode of Seinfeld in which Jerry is going out with an Indian / Native American girl-friend.

Can't remember the details, but there was some play with the terms "scalper" and "reservation" in connection with the tickets to a baseball game, and Kramer doing an Indian war-whoop from a taxi after buying a tobacco store wooden Indian.

I'm not sure whether it was just done because it seemed funny, or whether it was a deliberate piss-take of the obsessive "walking on eggshells" approach to alleged racism.

The actor who played Kramer was later involved in some very genuine anti-Semitic racism.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

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.

In Australia, people sometimes speak of these fractions but they see themselves as 100% Australian (those who are 2nd generation or more anyway), the fractions are just a way of speaking of their heritage and most likely has something to do with being an immigrant nation, where we come from is vaguely interesting in a talk about it once or twice a year kind of way.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0