Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation
HR57JazzandBlues.@worldnet.att.net
26 Aug 1996 21:02:58 GMT
matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>In sci.archaeology HR57JazzandBlues.@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>Stephen Barnard <steve@megafauna.com> wrote:
>>>HR57JazzandBlues.@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Stephen Barnard <steve@megafauna.com> wrote:
>>>>
>
>[snip]
>
>>As I have mentioned before I have only watched this thread
>>intermittently and may have missed some points of view. I don't mean
>>to pick on a side comment but why should you not still be satisfied
>>with Native American? The indigenous people here were and still are
>>not Indians.
>
>The argue that with -the people who are decendants of the people who
>lived here when Columbus arrived- who approve of the term "Indian".
Well we can continue to paint strips and make chicken
salad but I maintain my position that the indigenous people
Columbus found were and are still not Indians. It really
makes no difference if the word Indian was offensive or not
to the people who were here when Columbus arrived. What is
important here is how the present decendants feel about how
they are referred to.
BTW I find it curious that we do not use any of the early
names used by the native people that refer to themselves as a
people.
>Then maybe you will understand the original question.
>
>BTW, perhaps the above phrase should be adopted. If we can't use
>language to communicate, at least we can amuse. ;-)
>
>[snip]
>
>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What's you point?
>
>>My point is simply that the "white-bread midwesterners" you spoke of
>>seem to want to be correct or at least polite in how they address
>>any group of people and the word Jew has and still is used by
>>bigots.
>
>Having been in that situation, it is more likely that that person was
>uncomfortable with Jews.
>
>>May be in light of this the word Jew had lost its flavor to
>>these people and they were atempting to soften, on their own, what
>>they perceive as an *offensive* reference with an acceptable
>>substitue.
>
>Who gets to pick the substitutes?
Oh! Take a wild guess.
In place of Jew I prefer Grand
>Exalted Pooba. But I settle for Matt most of the time.
I prefer Paloma.
>
>>But what they did not do was create a cutesy yuppy style,
>>white wine and cheese *slang* reference such as Amerind! What the
>>h--- is an Amerind?
>
>I accept that Amerind not a prefered word, and do not use it. But for
>sheer sound, I like the word. I also like "Inja Indian" spoken in an
>upper class Britiah accent.
Yeh! It does sound good. Just thinking about the word makes
me thirsty. I think I'll have some brie and a glass of
Amerind! Chilled of course.
>
>[snip]
>
>>>I'm not speaking for "white America". I'm speaking only for myself.
>
>>I do not take your remarks as speaking for white America, however, I
>>do feel your comments mirror the smug sentiments of most of white
>>America. If you did not intend to give an impression of being smug
>>or intolorant may be you should try, if you can, divorcing yourself
>>from yourself and listen and hear your own words as if they were
>>coming from a stranger. You may be surprised at what you learn.
>
>In talk.origins they use an irony meter on comments like this. Mine is
>broken, but I would guess this post gets at least a 8.5 (on a scale of
>11).
Oh! Is that all!!!! :-)
>
>
>
>Matt Silberstein
>
>----------------------------------------
>
>What is the scariest line you know? How about:
>
>"My name is Number 6, what's yours?"
-Paloma
"Don't worry about the changes in the key
just play within the range of the idea"
Charlie Parker
|