Skip to main content

View Diary: On 'Redskins,' President Obama gets it right and Fox News Dem Lanny Davis gets it completely wrong (301 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You'll discover, however, that most Indians.... (24+ / 0-)

    ...prefer "Indian" or our tribal designation to describe ourselves. "Native American" has its own problems because a native American is someone born here, no matter what their color. But "Native American" or "Indian" or "First Nation" or "indigenous" are all acceptable in the view of most of us.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 11:25:09 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Native peoples is about as accurate a term (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sethtriggs

      as I can think of, not including any Eurocentric labels or assumptions. Of course, it's not my place to tell anyone what they should call themselves. It's just the term that I prefer to use, not being a "Native American" in even the broader sense of the word myself.

      There's also aboriginal, but it's very rarely used.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 11:48:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In Australia, "Abo" was a long-time... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        navajo

        ...term of abuse. I don't know how common it is now; I would hope it's not.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 12:47:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  what is so difficult (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        navajo, Meteor Blades, copymark

        about asking the people in question what they prefer to be called?

        Whatever the origin of the word.

        My understanding that many people identify by their nation. So may prefer say Navajo or Ojibwa; as someone may prefer Swedish or italian over European

        fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

        by mollyd on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 12:49:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, for starters (0+ / 0-)

          there are dozens if not hundreds of nations in the US alone, each with a different self-preferred name, and I doubt there's a consensus how to refer to all the nations that predated the arrival of Europeans collectively. Some may prefer "Indians", others "native nations", yet others "native peoples". Unless and until someone convinces me that the latter is not an appropriate term, or that "Indians" is much preferred, I will continue to use it.

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 03:27:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Human Beings, typically (0+ / 0-)

          See the Cheyenne in Little Big Man for an example. You get that in other parts of the world, too. "Bantu" in many Bantu languages such as Kiswahili can mean People, as opposed to Europeans and other Black Africans and anybody else. (Thus one can read "Bantu languages" as "human languages".) Person is "mtu", and humanity is "Ubuntu", as in the Linux distribution. But these days Europeans and others are included among bantu.

          Then we get Real Americans, presumably in opposition to unReal unAmericans such as Kenyan Mau Mau Muslim Communist terrorists and the like. Or, in the old days, renegades who Went Native.

          Even Thomas Jefferson thought that way, when he wrote "All Men are created equal", explicitly excluding women, and implicitly excluding Native Americans, Africans, and more generally any non-Europeans outside the Jewish/Greek/Roman culture zone. But at least in principle including people of any religion, or none.

          Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

          by Mokurai on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 11:33:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  American Indian is crystal clear. (0+ / 0-)

        It only means one thing. Even American emigrants to India, of which there are few, are distinct in their description... American-Indian. There's that hyphen there to let you know you're not talking about the "Dances with Wolves" people.

        It's really not hard to figure out. There's no problem with it.

        You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

        by Eric Stratton on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 05:29:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not about knowing what it means (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite

          Rather, it's about whether the actual people involved want to be called that, and whether an historical ethnic identification and geographical mistake is the right basis for naming peoples. I mean, most people would know what a "Kike" is. Doesn't necessarily make it ok to use it.

          If a given native people is ok with American Indian, then I'm obviously ok with it. Are all ok? I doubt it. I'm guessing that many prefer terms native peoples or first nations (the preferred term in Canada). I'm going with native peoples.

          I have a good friend who's an Egyptian Arab and a naturalized US citizen (like me). Technically, he's an African-American, but he'd never use that term to describe himself. Hell, I was born in Israel, so that technically makes me an Asian, or Asian-American, although I'd never call myself that.

          There are no hard and fast rules here.

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 05:46:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Native American is sloppy, though. (0+ / 0-)

            Because, of course, anyone born anywhere is supposed to be native whatever that place is. Native Texan, Native Hawaiian, Native New Yorker or whatever. I try to identify the specific tribal name if I know it. But if not, it's American Indian or just Indian.

            The Redskins are never changing their name though. This is a PC pipe dream, IMO.

            You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

            by Eric Stratton on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 08:55:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Are you having cognitive issues? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eric Stratton

              I've repeatedly said native PEOPLES, not Americans. For some reason you keep reading things that aren't there. Native Peoples means various peoples, i.e. nations or tribes, who were native to this country or the land that it spans, before Europeans arrived. Arapaho, Lakota, Creek, Huron, Comanche--all native peoples, the way that the Basque are native to NE Spain and the Mongols were to central Asia. It's accurate and neutral.

              Btw I have no problem with American Indian. I just don't use it myself.

              "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

              by kovie on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 09:47:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, I am pretty hammered. (0+ / 0-)

                And this douche bag on the MMOG I'm playing just sniped my baron with 100k rangers he pulled out of his ass. God I hate that asshole.

                You know what, I don't give a fuck what the alliance leader says. I'm taking that bitch down right fucking now. Fuck 'em. They've all got their head's up their asses anyway. I got berserkers and I'm gonna use them.

                OK... what were we talking about? Oh yeah. Indians. Yeah, native peoples works fine. Indigenous is probably better but it really doesn't matter.

                I am going to fucking crush this guy. He picked the wrong guy to mess with.

                You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

                by Eric Stratton on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 10:21:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Never have liked "Indian" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevskos, sethtriggs

      Even before I realized it might not be PC, I thought of it as simply inaccurate. Columbus was an idiot.

      I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

      by blue aardvark on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 12:04:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Each of those terms has multiple meanings (0+ / 0-)

      in different contexts. "Native American" has two quite distinct meanings, one for those whose ancestors were in the Americas before the Europeans, and one for birthright US citizens. It should have other meanings in other countries in the Americans, but I know nothing about such usage in Spanish or other languages. I don't personally see an objection to using one of them in a context where it is clear that that is the one intended, and we are not concerned about US Nativist idiots. But I would not argue with those who have a reason to feel otherwise, such as having to deal more directly than I do with the idiots.

      "First Nations" has both a generic meaning and a very specific meaning in Canadian law.

      And so on.

      Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

      by Mokurai on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 11:17:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site