Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation
Matt Silberstein (matts2@ix.netcom.com)
Tue, 27 Aug 1996 00:43:32 GMT
In sci.archaeology HR57JazzandBlues.@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>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.
Do I understand that your take on this question is that you get to
decide what to call the people in question? I have no position on the
issue at all. You may have noticed that I have gone to great lengths
to use every name and therefore avoid the issue. But to repeat my
point above, there are people I know, who are decendents of the people
who lived in what is now called the United States, who call themselves
Indians. Are they wrong to do so? If so will you tell them or shall I?
(Personally I prefer not 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.
>
Do you not think it a somewhat suspect, if not actually racist, to
refer to yourselves as human beings to separate yourself from
strangers.
[snip]
>>>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.
I would have guessed you prefered HR57JazzandBlues. ;-)
>>
>>>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.
I never thought of it that way. But you are right, it does sound like
a wine. That is probably why I like the sound. (I think that should
have a smilie, but I am not sure it is a joke.)
>>
>>[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!!!! :-)
It is a logrithmic scale.
Verbing weirds language - W. W.
|