Comments on: What is African-American?

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:14:38 +0000

That’s skipping a rather important point: The word “nigger” is used (unfortunately, by some) with a double standard: Completely acceptable within the group but strongly offensive when offered from without.

I don’t agree with that double standard. I think it’s repulsive and self-destructive. But there it is.

On the other hand, that double standard doesn’t generally apply to the indigenous tribes that often refer to themselves as American Indians. And I can’t see any valid reason to take offense at the term, coming from anyone.

On a side note, it’s interesting that the Smithsonian Institution opened the National Museum of the American Indian in 2004. You may be certain, nothing about that Museum, including its name, is disrespectful towards the tribes it represents. http://www.nmai.si.edu/index.cfm

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:33:04 +0000

Most of the members of American Indian tribes to whom Iâ€ve been exposed use the word â€œIndianâ€ or â€œAmerican Indian.â€

Most of the blacks I have met refer to one another as niggers. Does that mean it's acceptable for society to refer to all blacks as niggers?

By: rick

rick — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:52:44 +0000

Wow.

I can assure you if you called the first nations people in our area Indians, you may just be taking your life in your hands...

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:21:49 +0000

Most of the members of American Indian tribes to whom I've been exposed use the word "Indian" or "American Indian." It seems to be mostly white liberals who take offense at the word, not the labeled people themselves.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:16:24 +0000

Yes they do. At least those I have known and grew up with did/do.

By: rick

rick — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:07:06 +0000

I think it has a lot to do with if the label is self made (and self identified, I guess) versus placed on the group from another body.

Indo-Canadians call themselves Indo-Canadians, etc.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:04:00 +0000

I don't think it's a matter of offense (at least I wouldn't think so, maybe some do) but perhaps accuracy. I consider myself, first and foremost a Canadian, although I have English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, German and Ukrainian in my background.

Indo-Canadian would be those born here in Canada from India. First Nations are people of Aboriginal descent. We have a lot of Asians of varying nationalities in Canada, so to refer to First Nations people as Indo-Canadian would be more confusion. At least that's how I understand it.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:16:37 +0000

I think "Indo-Canadian" is a valid enough term for the sake of clarity, but I don't see why anyone would be less (or more) offended by it than the term "American Indian."

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 03:42:24 +0000

I know, that's fine, use what you would like (I'm not being defensive, just so you know), but I still think Indians are from India, and you will see I didn't refer to them as Native American. Or Native Canadian. Aboriginal or First Nations is more accurate, in my opinion. Which may be wrong, but there it is.

Perhaps this is because I knew and grew up with many individuals from India. I see them as Indian, not First Nations as Indians.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:39:03 +0000

Mary, I'm also not from the Caucasus region, but people call me a caucasian.

It doesn't matter whether the word "Indian" was inaccurate when first applied. It evolved into a word with a second, independent meaning. That happens with all kinds of words. "Canada" originally was the name of a much smaller place, and "Quebec" was the name of a single narrow pass along a river, if my memory serves correctly. Doesn't matter. They came to mean something else.

Calling them "Native Americans" is exactly as inaccurate as calling them "Indians" because they have no familial conection with Amerigo Vespucci.