From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.native-america
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:06:12 GMT

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:

>>As if "American Indian" has any meaning in and of itself.  The indigenous
>>peoples of the Americas are not from India.  The only reason that misnomer
>>was applied was because some Spanish sailor of the 15th century got lost,
>>and thought he was off the coast of Asia when he landed in the Bahamas.

>Nontheless, you will agree with me that if you walk up to just about 
>any US citizen and as him/her if he knows what an American Indian is,
>you'll get an answer that points to the indians of the type that
>helped the Pilgrims.  

or the "Injuns" who went around scalping folks, wore big warbonnets,
rode horses bareback, went bouncing around fires shouting "owowowowowowowowow,"
and spoke using terms like "Ugh!" "How!" and "Me smoke'um peace pipe."

Unfortunately, those stereotypes are not accurate images for most 
Native American cultures.  There was quite a bit of diversity among the
cultures of the various indigenous peoples.  I suggest that the
"American Indian" misnomer has been tainted by years of applying an
erroneous stereotype.

Or should revert to using the "traditional" / derrogatorry
terms for people of different ethnic backgrounds?  You know, call
Native Americans "Indians" or "Injuns," people of Chinese ethnicity
"Chinks," and people of sub-Saharan African ancestry "Niggers."

Excuse me...I think I need to go wash my hands after typing that
last sentence.

>I suspect most people would react to "native
>american" with either puzzlement or offence at yet another newspeak
>PC term.

I suspect that most educated people (which *should* include all of
the Western Hemisphere folks on the net...although I sometimes wonder)
are aware of what group of people is being refered to by the term
"Native American."

Unfortunately, "Native American" is a pre-PC era term that has been
sucked into the vacuum of PC-land.

Or has PC moved on to the terms "Indigenous Americans" or "Aboriginal
Americans" ?

Anyway, what is wrong with PC when the PC-term is correct -- not a misnomer?

>>At least the term "Native American" doesn't immediately call to mind (IMHO)
>>as many erroneous stereotypical images to your average U.S. resident as
>>the term "Indian" does (you know...the noble savage injuns who walked around
>>wearing big warbonnets, carrying tomohawks, scalping folks, saying "Ugh!" and
>>"How!", etc.).

>You mean like my ancestors over in Cherokee, NC who make indian trinkets
>for sale in souvenir stands and who host one of the world's largest
>bingo games on the reservation while dressing up like "savages" in order
>to entertain the tourists?  How about the ones in NE Tennessee
>who do the same thing?

Gee...I see that you've been to the reservation turned tourist-trap too.
I'm willing to bet that you saw almost nothing of true Cherokee culture,
unless you stopped at the better museum on Cherokee lands.  You just
witnessed what some Cherokee have had to do to earn a living after
Americans, lead by Tennessee's Governor Carroll and President Jackson,
refused to recognize the sovereignity of the Cherokee Nation and stole
Cherokee land.

Yes, if you haven't already guessed, I'm also Cherokee; I lived for a short
time with relatives on the tourist-tr^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H eastern
lands of the Cherokee Nation.

>>"Native Americans," "Aboriginal Americans," "Indigenous Americans," whatever.
>>The latter two are more correct, and I think the first term is fairly well
>>understood, at least among educated folks of the North American continent.
>>"[American] Indian" is (IMO) an unacceptable term.  It's primarily just a
>>pet peeve of mine, and to me it smells slightly racist.

>Ah  yes, retreat to the "r" word when you run out of arguments.  Sorry,
>doesn't work with me.  If you want to consider my using "American 
>Indian" to refer to American Indians as racist, go right ahead.

Fine.  I happen to consider the use of a term, applied by Europeans
because one person got lost crossing the Atlantic, that attempts to
pin the origins of millions of people to the wrong place as being
if not racist, stupid.  Our ancestors are from the Americas, not
from India.

>>You weren't around for the soc.culture.indian.american fiasco, were you?

>Oh yes.  My kill file still bulges.

Perhaps we should ask Alok what his opinions are on the creation of
a soc.culture.american.indian for the discussion of the cultures indigenous
to the Americas.

Remember, if "indian" is going to be included in the group name, when
the CFV is issued (if it is issued...) it should be crossposted to 
soc.culture.indian[.*], rec.music.indian[.*], and whatever the
alt. Indian to ensure "spafness."  There's a chance that the folks
in those groups might have something to say about that choice for 
a group name...particularly those folks who were around for the
scia mess.

>>It seems to me that "Indian" on the net implies South Asian origin, not
>>of pre-European American origin.  I think that the [South Asian] Indians
>>and the [South Asian] Indian-Americans might have some comments about
>>the creation of a soc.culture.american.indian.

>Oh I'm sure they would.  I'm equally capable of ignoring them.

Fine, but some of us would like to see a soc.culture group for Native
Americans created someday, particularly since alt.native isn't carried
at a few major net.sites.  UIUC picked up alt.native only very recently,
for example.

IMO, soc.culture.native[.american] has a better shot at being passed than
soc.culture.american.indian.
--
Michael Adams				| Science without religion is lame;
Actuarial Science Program @ UIUC	| religion without science is blind.
StarOwl@uiuc.edu (NeXTmail OK)		| 		-- Thomas Edison
an692@anon.penet.fi (anonymously)	| NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv	     
Newsgroups: news.groups