From: news@hrd769.brooks.af.mil (InterNet News)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: How about soc.culture.america.tribal?
Date: 11 Dec 1992 16:44:49 -0600
Organization: Armstrong Lab MIS, Brooks AFB TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: hrd769.brooks.af.mil

In article <1992Dec11.105028.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>As soc.culture.native can apply to anybody who is a citizen of any
>country anywhere in the world, I think we can reject that name.

   I agree that we should reject that name.  I don't agree with your rationale.  
The term native, to my mind, indicates an individual whose existence is 
indigenous.  The native North Americans are not the citizens of North America.
The native Australians are not the citizens of Australia.

>Likewise, as soc.culture.america.native applies to anybody who lives in
>north or south america and holds citizenship in their country, it is
>also overly general. I think the key is to point out the cultural
>patterns of the group you want to bring together, and choose a name
>around that. The peoples called american indian tribes can be
>differentiated from the caucasian american peoples by a simple fact, the
>caucasians tend to cluster in cities and to take identity from
>geographic boundaries, and the "indians" tend to live outside of cities
>and draw identity from tribe and clan affiliation.

  Although some of your statements are not completely correct, and your choice 
of terms is not P.C., I agree with the sentiment.

>
>If the group is only for tribal peoples of the american continents, then
>soc.culture.america.tribal would be the most appropriate name. If it is
>for tribal peoples all over the world, then soc.culture.tribal would be
>most appropriate.
>

  The problem that I see with the term 'tribal' is that many of the concerns
that many of the posters are interested in discussing are not really 'tribal'
in general.  They are more specifically concerned with the discussion of their
situations as 'native' peoples.  A *.tribal newsgroup would (to be accurate) 
evolve into s.c.t.sioux, *.arapahoe, *.hopi, *.mandingo, *.aborigine, etc.  
Since virtually every region on the planet has had, at one time or another, 
a displaced native population, I think that the establishment of a 
'soc.culture.native' hierarchy root with subnodes like 'soviet-jew', 
'palestinian', 'n-american', 'c-american', 's-american', etc. would solve a 
lot of problems and offer a consolidated pivot for discussions of native 
cultures.  The existing groups, such as s.c.african.american seem to be in 
this spirit, in that the people that are interested in this group are, by
inference, interested in african culture among people in America.  The 
discussion is, first and foremost, a discussion of African issues as they
relate to their situation in America.  A similar group could be (as an
example) *.greek.germany, to discuss the concerns of greeks that are living
and working in Germany.  The discussions would be about Greeks, subdivided
into their geographical and logistical situations in Germany.  The native
groups would follow this same general pattern.

>Comments?
>
>-- 
>whoah,
>+++++++++++++++++++++++23
>Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
>Mediocrity is a hand rail.                         -- Baron de Montesquieu

TSgt Dave Burgess
NCOIC AL/MIS
Brooks AFB, TX
Newsgroups: news.groups