Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation

Matt Silberstein (
Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:02:09 GMT

In sci.archaeology wrote:

>Stephen Barnard <> wrote:
> I have been quietly and intermittently watching this thread but
>now I think its time for me to have my say.

>I have seen at least one Native American who's name I can not
>remember, try to teach, yes teach white America a thing or two
>about Native Americans and how they view themselvs, White America
>just can't seem to get it! It is no longer up to white America to
>decide what is or is not offensive to anyone but white America!
>These postings are for sci. archaeology and sci. anthopology but
>it appears that no one is interested in learning or understanding
>anything but their own narrow and many times arrogant points of

Why do you feel it is acceptable to refer to "white America"? In what
resonable way am I "white"? If we are refering only to skin color I
prefer the term "pink". It does a better job describing the color. (I
would love to get into a ((stupid)) discussion on whether my "pink" is
closer to "red" than a Native American "brown".) Or do you want to
assign certain political positions to me because of my color and want
to assign moral guilt to me because of my color?

>For starters - white America does not have American sports named
>according to skin color or the lack thereof, white America have
>not been hearded on to a piece of forign territory and told to
>live, white America has not had the culture of the old world
>ripped from memory

The use of nicknames for teams is reprehensible. In terms of herding,
I could swap you stories for hours. It does not make me righteous
because misdeed were done to my ancestors. I was taught that the evil
done to my ancestors gave me a special responsibility to not do evil

>and white America has not had any of her
>emmigrant ethnicities (tribes) become extinct.

For this to be true you need to have a special, narrow definition of
"white" and culture.

>>A few people have questioned my motives in starting this thread. Well, tough.

>Did you take any time at all to wonder WHY people questioned your
>motives? Judging from your post you could have cared less.

>>I'm not anti-Native-American. I *do* happen to find the hypersensitivity of
>>some ethnic groups to nomenclature to be unfortunate. Can you believe that
>>some white-bread Midwesterners actually think that "Jew" is an offensive term,
>>and that you should say "Jewish person" instead?

>Your words shoe that you are anti Native American and very smug
>about how some of those, you know, minorities react to white
>Americas nomenclature. My question is what kind of an American are
>you? And as for the lack of hypersensitivity from the Indian
>newsgroup -news flash- people will have more tolorance when they
>are addressed or referred to in a fashion that THEY, not you, deem

>Well the white-bread midwesterners may be on to something. Does
>the word Hebrew ring a bell? JU-daism is a religion. Remember, the
>one that came before Christianity and Islam, numero uno in the
>chronology of the big three!

So, in your opinion, who gets to decide how to refer to a group? And
do you refer to a Cathloc person rather than a Cathloc? A Moslem
person rather than a Moslem? Or a Protestant person rather than a

Matt Silberstein


What is the scariest line you know? How about:

"My name is Number 6, what's yours?"