Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation
Mary Beth Williams (mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary)
30 Jul 1996 11:23:56 GMT
In <31FDCDA0.5ABA@megafauna.com> Stephen Barnard <steve@megafauna.com>
writes:
>When I want to refer to, shall we say, "the people (and their
>descendants) who participated in the Early Contact Period who weren't
>of European descent," then I face a problem. What can I call them
>that will be (1) clear and unambiguous, and (2) not give offense.
>
>Indians? No. That's ambiguous and offensive to some people.
I've yet to meet a *real* Indian who was offended by the term.
Granted, most west of the Mississippi for some reason prefer this term,
whereas those east of the Mississippi prefer *Native American*. Most
use both terms interchangably. But neither are as *offensive* as the
psuedoscientific term *Amerind* or *Amerindian*. If you're really hard
pressed, used the Canadian legal term, *First Nations*.
>Aborigines? No. That's already used for Australians in common speech
>and would probably be offensive since it implies primitive.
>
>Native Americans? No. That's ambiguous and very slightly offensive
>to me, since I'm a native (small n) American.
Oh, you're offended by the truth? In the US, if you claim Native
American status, you are making a claim to membership in a legally
defined class of persons. So what is your tribal affiliation?
>Amerind? Nope. Offensive.
>
>Do you see the problem? I'd really like a solution to this. I'm not
>comfortable feeling like I'm about to be pounced on for racism at any
>moment.
Your remark on the term N.A. makes one wonder how sensitive you really
are to minority issues, however, it is a valid concern for many
non-Indians.
MB Williams (Penobscot/Kennebec/Maliseet)
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
|