From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Words
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:41:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.145034.16511@samba.oit.unc.edu> Jack.Smoke@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Jack Smoke) writes:

>	Smoke frowns and responds.  "I am a Cherokee.  For those who
>an not familier, Cherokee (Tsa'La'Gee in our own language (CWY)) are
>an American Indian nation split in two - the Eastern Cherokee in 
>North Carolina, and the Western Cherokee in Oklahoma.  This split is 
>the result of the US goventment's Indian removal policy of the 1830's.
>I won't go into the details - if you're interested, read Mr. John Ehle's
>book, "Trail of Tears," published by Anchor books.

	"Personally, I'd be inclined to characterize that particular
removal as the single greatest crime in the history of relations
between the U.S. and the American Indians.  Not necessarily because it
caused the most deaths (though it certainly caused many).  But because
of the circumstances.  Essentially, by ordering the Cherokee removal,
the United States said that, despite the fact that the Cherokee had
set up a literate, democratic, agrarian society very similar to the US
itself (including a partially-completed capital modelled on
Washington, D.C. and, alas, the use of slaves), it was not possible
for the two to live in peace.  And if the U.S. couldn't do it with the
Cherokee, it couldn't with any tribe on the continent, for none had
gone so far to remove any legitimate conflicts.  To add insult to
injury, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal policy-- and
President Andrew Jackson responded by saying, `[Chief Justice] John
Marshall has made his decision.  Now let him enforce it.'  One reason
that Old Hickory doesn't make my list of favorite presidents.  One can
only speculate how history might have gone if that particular decision
had gone the other way.  Most folks here know that in general I'm a
fairly strong booster of the role of the U.S. in history, but we've
had our failings as well-- and this was one of the worst."

>	"My point is this: A couple of Days ago, I lectured on 
>Colombus.  Don Colombus wanted spain to believe he had reached the
>Indies, when in fact, he had not, so he named the locals "Indians"

	"I'd still tend to give the benefit of the doubt to Columbus
that he really did think he'd reached the Indies.  After all, he'd
never been to India-- nor, probably, did he know many people who had.
In addition, given the size of India, he might well have supposed that
any discrepancies reflected the fact that he was in a different part
of the lands he sought than the Portuguese frequented.  Self-deception
is powerful as well, particularly when he wanted so to be vindicated."

>Regardless of wether or no I like Don Colombus, the name has stuck.
>I am a Native American.  BUT, so is every one in this room who was born in
>America.  I am an American Indian.  Please note that Mr. Russell 
>Means is not president of the "Native American Movement,"
>but the "American Indian Movement."

	"This came up on alt.native several months ago, and convinced
me to adopt the usage `American Indian' (previously I'd been using
`Amerind', but it seemed pretty clear that most American Indians,
judging by what was said on the net, don't particularly like that
term).  I am curious, though, whether using `Indian' alone is an
acceptable shortening once context is clear.  If not, is there an
acceptable shortening?  Saying "American Indian" several times in a
paragraph begins to seem clumsy after a while.  (Using `A.I.' would
tend to cause its own problems, especially on the net.  :-) )

Michael
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Indeed I tremble for my country
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 when I reflect that God is just."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Virginia (1784)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans