|
|
Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation
Bill Hoyt (billhoyt@sound.net)
2 Aug 1996 20:51:51 GMT
mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>
>How many breeds have you approached with this question? Perhaps it is
>you who is naive. I, like every mixed-blood Indian I know, identifies
>as Indian, not white or even *mixed blood*. That doesn't negate my
>white ancestory, but states socially, culturally and politically where
>I place myself. For some reason in the US we don't see it as an issue
>when people of African-American/white parentage view themselves as
>*black*.
>
>MB Williams
>Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
>
As a person of mixed ancestry (Seneca, French-Canadian, English, Irish,
German, Polish, and Dutch) I define myself as the situation demands. For
PC and race-counting schemes, I say "mixed" or "Indian" (just to mess
with the numbers), but I look white, so I have never thought of it as
much as an issue. I only find terms offensive if they appear to be MEANT
in an offensive manner, otherwise "Amerind", "Native American", or "First
Nations" don't mean much of anything to me. "Indian" is fine, unless
context demands clarification.
It seems to me that those who look to be offended will always find
something to be offended (witness the debate between
Hispanic/Chicano/Latino or Black/African American/Person of Color). It
appears to me if we're ever going to get along, we are going to have to
stop being so thin-skinned about the labels we use on ourselves and one
another.
Just my sixpence,
Bill
--
One man should not be afraid of improving his posessions, lest they be
taken away from him, or another deterred by high taxes from starting a
new business. Rather, the Prince should be ready to reward men who
want to do these things and those who endeavour in any way to increase
the prosperity of their city or their state. - Machiavelli
billhoyt@sound.net
http://www.sound.net/~billhoyt/index.htm
|