Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

Native Americans or Indians

Native Americans or Indians?   

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Which do you think is the appropriate name that textbooks, politicians, and people should use when talking about the inhabitants of North America prior to European colonization or when talking about those living on reservations? [Check all that apply]

    • Authors, politicians, and people should be encouraged to refer to these individuals by any name they wish to use.
    • Indians or Injuns
    • American Indians
    • Native Americans
    • American Redmen or redmen or Redskins
      0
    • American Savages or savages
      0
    • American tribesmen
    • They should be referred to by their individual tribe names and never grouped collectively unless you are talking generally about most if not all pre-European Americans.
    • Indigenous Americans
    • Pre-European Americans
      0
    • Aboriginal Americans or American Aborgines
    • Amerindian or Amerind
    • First Nations
    • Injuns
      0
    • They should be called by whatever they wish to be called at any given time. We shouldn't have a say in what we label them as.
  2. 2. Are you part Native American?

    • Yes
    • No
    • I don't think I am or I don't know.
    • I might be, according to family lore
  3. 3. Has the US Government been fair to these people in US history?

    • Yes.
      0
    • No, but we can't do much about it.
    • No, and we should do something in atonement for our hideous past.
    • No, but many of them were just as bad as we were, so we shouldn't feel completely guilty.
    • No, and we should return the land we took from them!
  4. 4. If you could go back in time and you had the powers to stop any of the following from occuring, which would you prevent? [Click all that apply]

    • I'd prevent the European colonization of the New World.
    • If post-European colonization, and America has been formed, I'd block all expansion and land-grabbing of their territory, even if it means the US will permanently exist as only the 13 original colonies (+Vermont).
    • I wouldn't prevent any of these because 1) No one kind of people have a perpetual claim to any land in the world.
    • I wouldn't prevent any of these because 2) The world is better off with American expansion on the continent
    • I wouldn't prevent any of these because 3) I don't think these people were either civilized enough or were using the land properly enough to warrant exclusive property rights.
    • Other.


Recommended Posts

New poll. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

New poll. 

Number 3 I can't answer accurately. First, I don't live in the U.S., and thus my point-of-view regarding First Nations, as they are here in Canada, are very different, because our dealings with our Indigenous Peoples have a very different history (though we have a lot of ugly moments and failings, too - both in the past and today). I also feel wealthy nations like the Canada and the U.S. can make reparative policies with First Nations without demanding "ancestral guilt," something I feel is very socially unhealthy, but your options either say, effectively, "accept ancestral guilt AND make reparative policies," or "though we have a horrid record, no ancestral guilt AND reparative policies."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an interesting CGP Grey video on this topic. He actually notes that many tribal reservations prefer the term American Indian (or just Indian), as opposed to Native American. This is because many tribes feel that Native American is overinclusive and binds together all indigenous groups of North and South America, whereas American Indian/Indian is more directly appropriate for tribes residing within the lands of the United States.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alxeu said:

There's an interesting CGP Grey video on this topic. He actually notes that many tribal reservations prefer the term American Indian (or just Indian), as opposed to Native American. This is because many tribes feel that Native American is overinclusive and binds together all indigenous groups of North and South America, whereas American Indian/Indian is more directly appropriate for tribes residing within the lands of the United States.

 

 

First Nations is the by far preferred (and official and legal) term used here in Canada. In fact, a growing number of First Nations members in Canada, especially younger ones, regard "Indian," as a racist slur, in many cases comparable to African-Americans being called the N-word (despite the fact that, the last time I brought that fact up on this forum, @Reagan04, inexplicably, was incredulous at the time, seemed just as offended as the level of personal insult in question that it would possibly be taken that way by First Nations members up here, and declared angrily a statement tantamount to saying that they had no "right" to take the level of offense to the word "Indian," that African-Americans do to the "N-word," and the very fact they did de facto made them racist against African-Americans and belittling what they had suffered. It was really quite the screed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

First Nations is the by far preferred (and official and legal) term used here in Canada. In fact, a growing number of First Nations members in Canada, especially younger ones, regard "Indian," as a racist slur, in many cases comparable to African-Americans being called the N-word (despite the fact that, the last time I brought that fact up on this forum, @Reagan04, inexplicably, was incredulous at the time, seemed just as offended as the level of personal insult in question that it would possibly be taken that way by First Nations members up here, and declared angrily a statement tantamount to saying that they had no "right" to take the level of offense to the word "Indian," that African-Americans do to the "N-word," and the very fact they did de facto made them racist against African-Americans and belittling what they had suffered. It was really quite the screed).

Yes, and I hold to this day that it's not even close. The n-word is far worse, maybe in Canada it's different because of the vastly different histories both with Amerindian people and with Black people, but in America the n-word the paramount racial slur whereas something like Amerindian or American Indian is not a slur whatsoever, in many cases it's the most commonly preferred term. It wasn't "quite the screed", it's just the reality south of the provinces. To asser that dichotomy in America is to erase a lot of context both historical and current.

As for what @vcczar originally posed. I think with most minority groups in the country. The best way to redress grievances is extending the constitutional protection that we have deprived. A great step forward for both Amerindians and for a consistently ethical textualism in interpreting statutes come from by boy Big Neil Gorsuch in his opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma which was handed down last week. That's a great way to start working with reservations and tribes in respecting sovreignty and integrating into the larger national economy to lessen rates of poverty and other social woes faced disproportionately by reservations and people living on tribal land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

Yes, and I hold to this day that it's not even close. The n-word is far worse, maybe in Canada it's different because of the vastly different histories both with Amerindian people and with Black people, but in America the n-word the paramount racial slur whereas something like Amerindian or American Indian is not a slur whatsoever, in many cases it's the most commonly preferred term. It wasn't "quite the screed", it's just the reality south of the provinces. To asser that dichotomy in America is to erase a lot of context both historical and current.

As for what @vcczar originally posed. I think with most minority groups in the country. The best way to redress grievances is extending the constitutional protection that we have deprived. A great step forward for both Amerindians and for a consistently ethical textualism in interpreting statutes come from by boy Big Neil Gorsuch in his opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma which was handed down last week. That's a great way to start working with reservations and tribes in respecting sovreignty and integrating into the larger national economy to lessen rates of poverty and other social woes faced disproportionately by reservations and people living on tribal land.

However, that being said, it is VERY arrogant, detached, and paternalistic to tell one group of people they have no right to take offence to a racist slur used where live to a degree another group in another place takes another racist slur, because the latter group is declared arbitrarily to be ahead in the "Suffering Olympics." Can you not see this. And, notably, both times you responded as though I was referring to the attitudes of Native Americans south of the 49th, and not Canadian First Nations, which all the more shows your responses to be disjointed and distorted. And, when someone, anywhere in the world, of any group of people, is insulted with a genuine slur, how many do you really think calculate meticulously this artificial, externally created "emotional matrix," of how appropriate a response of taking offence is compared to the predicament of other peoples, and then respond, internally and externally, as this would dictate appropriate? Think here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Yes, and I hold to this day that it's not even close. The n-word is far worse, maybe in Canada it's different because of the vastly different histories both with Amerindian people and with Black people, but in America the n-word the paramount racial slur whereas something like Amerindian or American Indian is not a slur whatsoever, in many cases it's the most commonly preferred term. It wasn't "quite the screed", it's just the reality south of the provinces. To asser that dichotomy in America is to erase a lot of context both historical and current.

As for what @vcczar originally posed. I think with most minority groups in the country. The best way to redress grievances is extending the constitutional protection that we have deprived. A great step forward for both Amerindians and for a consistently ethical textualism in interpreting statutes come from by boy Big Neil Gorsuch in his opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma which was handed down last week. That's a great way to start working with reservations and tribes in respecting sovreignty and integrating into the larger national economy to lessen rates of poverty and other social woes faced disproportionately by reservations and people living on tribal land.

Also, I would beg to differ with your vaunted views that Native Americans and First Nations had a better and less rough and atrocity-ridden history on this continent since colonization began than African-Americans - the experience has just been completely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

However, that being said, it is VERY arrogant, detached, and paternalistic to tell one group of people they have no right to take offence to a racist slur used where live to a degree another group in another place takes another racist slur, because the latter group is declared arbitrarily to be ahead in the "Suffering Olympics." Can you not see this. And, notably, both times you responded as though I was referring to the attitudes of Native Americans south of the 49th, and not Canadian First Nations, which all the more shows your responses to be disjointed and distorted. And, when someone, anywhere in the world, of any group of people, is insulted with a genuine slur, how many do you really think calculate meticulously this artificial, externally created "emotional matrix," of how appropriate a response of taking offence is compared to the predicament of other peoples, and then respond, internally and externally, as this would dictate appropriate? Think here!

Because "Indian" is not a racist slur in America. This is the entire point I'm making. Just like "Karen" is not a racist slur for white women, "Indian" is not a racist slur for American Indians. Hell, I wouldn't care if I got called a cracker. Sure, that person is likely racist but I don't care because that word hasn't been used by a system of oppression to continually batter my people.

The n-word is one of the most heinous slurs to exist in history because of its deep roots in systemic racism in America and its inseparable context with racism, segregation, and institutionalized, systemic racism. 

So yes, I will pass judgment on which slurs are particularly more objectionable and what is a slur and what is not. I speak from an American perspective just as you speak from a Canadian one, this is not a controversial point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

Because "Indian" is not a racist slur in America. This is the entire point I'm making. Just like "Karen" is not a racist slur for white women, "Indian" is not a racist slur for American Indians. Hell, I wouldn't care if I got called a cracker. Sure, that person is likely racist but I don't care because that word hasn't been used by a system of oppression to continually batter my people.

The n-word is one of the most heinous slurs to exist in history because of its deep roots in systemic racism in America and its inseparable context with racism, segregation, and institutionalized, systemic racism. 

So yes, I will pass judgment on which slurs are particularly more objectionable and what is a slur and what is not. I speak from an American perspective just as you speak from a Canadian one, this is not a controversial point.

But the original post I referred to attacked CANADIAN First Nations for taking the slur "Indian," to be as offensive as most African-Americans took the N-word in many cases. Or were you paying attention at the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Also, I would beg to differ with your vaunted views that Native Americans and First Nations had a better and less rough and atrocity-ridden history on this continent since colonization began than African-Americans - the experience has just been completely different.

I will disagree here. I think the experience of slaves and later all black Americans who face systemic racism is far greater than the adversities faced by Amerindians. (Again, speaking from an American perspective here because this is where I am knowledgeable). 

Black Americans were sold into slavery by African powers and shipped to a new world where their entire purpose was to be free labor. This would evolve into the chattel slavery that boomed in the 18th and 19th centuries. This is not to mention the legacy of segregation and generational discrimination forced upon these people shipped over for the sole purpose of exploitation and dehumanization.

Compare this to Amerindians. While cooperation and multilateral agreements were the original diplomatic chord between colonists and Amerindians, this gave way to wars. Wars happen in human history. They are awful but they are a fact of history. Some of these wars were sparked by Amerindian tribes, others by colonists. Eventually by the time that Britain had formed the 13 colonies, the colonists had won on the Eastern coast. As America expanded the power discrepancy grew and grew and we began to give native tribes not war declarations so much as we gave them raw deals that often ended in conflict. 

This is a difference between a people whose whole purpose was to be dehumanized and a people who lost a war and were exploited thereafter. Both are wrong, the former is worse and requires a lot more remedy to expand liberty and equal protection across those populations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Or were you paying attention at the time?

Patine you and I both know this is unncessary. I don't remember the conversation you're talking about and it's probably not worth arguing over whether or not I understood you 2 years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Patine you and I both know this is unncessary. I don't remember the conversation you're talking about and it's probably not worth arguing over whether or not I understood you 2 years ago. 

Fine. But I do believe it likely started by you not fully reading the side of the border I was referring, and I think we can leave it at that - lest I have to go into the nitty-gritty of Jacksonian genocides and trails of tears (he would likely actually be the worst war criminal among U.S. Presidents for that, honestly, if he his Administration didn't predate all the international conventions that actually DEFINED war crimes. But I'll end there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I learned the correct name is supposed to be Native Americans. Indians or Indianer is what the group is called in German. Furthermore, I thought First Nations refers to indigenous people in Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

Yes, and I hold to this day that it's not even close. The n-word is far worse, maybe in Canada it's different because of the vastly different histories both with Amerindian people and with Black people, but in America the n-word the paramount racial slur whereas something like Amerindian or American Indian is not a slur whatsoever, in many cases it's the most commonly preferred term. It wasn't "quite the screed", it's just the reality south of the provinces. To asser that dichotomy in America is to erase a lot of context both historical and current.

As for what @vcczar originally posed. I think with most minority groups in the country. The best way to redress grievances is extending the constitutional protection that we have deprived. A great step forward for both Amerindians and for a consistently ethical textualism in interpreting statutes come from by boy Big Neil Gorsuch in his opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma which was handed down last week. That's a great way to start working with reservations and tribes in respecting sovreignty and integrating into the larger national economy to lessen rates of poverty and other social woes faced disproportionately by reservations and people living on tribal land.

It’s your move in the other thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know how you could say American expansionism made the world better or colonialism as a whole, an entire race is nearly extinct and faced significant genocide. I'm sure the same people wouldn't say the same if their white race faced extinction and lost all its culture through forced integration from a power that doesn't even care about them and sees them as a bug.

Native Americans got lucky that Americans wised up slightly, in many parts of the world colonialism has ended races, e.g. Aboriginals in Australia, it's very hard to find pure blood ones despite there being almost millions at the time of colonalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say "Native American" as I believe that's the most respectful term, but I would also defer to anyone who preferred to be called something else.  I also understand that no one person speaks for the entire group (as with any other race/nationality).

As for travelling back in time, I would change nothing because I've read enough time travel literature to know your changes always make things worse.

;c)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I learned the correct name is supposed to be Native Americans. Indians or Indianer is what the group is called in German. Furthermore, I thought First Nations refers to indigenous people in Canada.

It does, and I didn't say otherwise. The original disagreement quoted above was that, I believe, is my esteemed collegue misread which side of the border the context of my statement was before going into his angry rant (and I still think he grossly downplays the suffering and injustice Native Americans on his side of the border have suffered, even comparable, but in a completely different experience, to African-Americans, which is an unfortunate attitude, but this time I'm NOT going to waste a tonne of time trying to educate him on this one).

As for time travel - this directed at @vcczar, because part 3 of his poll already meant I couldn't answer directly as stated, as I mentioned above, @Actinguy has it about right, and what a lot of authors of the Alternate History/Alternate Universe/Time Travel fiction genre either don't understand (or ignore solely to present their message or make their plot workable), where they portray a world "when things catch up," that is still a world that is recognizable, and where most things happened as normal, and most people were still born, died, and had similar ambitions in life to what was historical, and all changes are DIRECTLY extrapolated from the "schism point," alone, and only what's relevant to it. In truth, however, I believe (and I've read some credible experts on the theory of the matter who strongly believe this too) that any such changes cause a veritable "butterfly effect," with ALL random elements redetermined, a cascade of changes and alterations of an immense snowball effect EVERYWHERE and involving EVERYTHING, where NOTHING can be guaranteed to have retention, and the world "when things catch up," is utterly unrecognizable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

It does, and I didn't say otherwise. The original disagreement quoted above was that, I believe, is my esteemed collegue misread which side of the border the context of my statement was before going into his angry rant (and I still think he grossly downplays the suffering and injustice Native Americans on his side of the border have suffered, even comparable, but in a completely different experience, to African-Americans, which is an unfortunate attitude, but this time I'm NOT going to waste a tonne of time trying to educate him on this one).

As for time travel - this directed at @vcczar, because part 3 of his poll already meant I couldn't answer directly as stated, as I mentioned above, @Actinguy has it about right, and what a lot of authors of the Alternate History/Alternate Universe/Time Travel fiction genre either don't understand (or ignore solely to present their message or make their plot workable), where they portray a world "when things catch up," that is still a world that is recognizable, and where most things happened as normal, and most people were still born, died, and had similar ambitions in life to what was historical, and all changes are DIRECTLY extrapolated from the "schism point," alone, and only what's relevant to it. In truth, however, I believe (and I've read some credible experts on the theory of the matter who strongly believe this too) that any such changes cause a veritable "butterfly effect," with ALL random elements redetermined, a cascade of changes and alterations of an immense snowball effect EVERYWHERE and involving EVERYTHING, where NOTHING can be guaranteed to have retention, and the world "when things catch up," is utterly unrecognizable.

and @Conservative Elector 2

Yeah, First Nation is for Canadian indiginous people; however, I thought it would be interesting to put it in the poll for Americans because it seems like a name that some people should be associated with all pre-European Americans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Patine said:

It does, and I didn't say otherwise.

I didn't accuse you of saying otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

and @Conservative Elector 2

Yeah, First Nation is for Canadian indiginous people; however, I thought it would be interesting to put it in the poll for Americans because it seems like a name that some people should be associated with all pre-European Americans. 

Though, I believe that Inuit, Yupik, Aleuts, Hawai'ians, Samoans, and Chamorros distinguish themselves completely from Native Americans like Inuit in Canada do from First Nations - because racially, genetically, historically, they're not the same people. First Nations/Native Americans/Indigenous Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean had ancestors who came across by the Bering Land Bridge in the Last Great Ice about 400 000 to 600 000 years ago. The Inuit, Yupik, and Aleuts came by boat from Siberia about 3000-6000 years, when there was no land bridge, and they STILL have traceable ethnic, cultural, and linguistic relatives in Eastern Siberia, like the Chukchis and Koryaks. Hawai'ians and Samoans are Polynesians, and related to Tahitians, Tongans, Maoris, etc., and Chamorros are Micronesians, and related to Palauans, Marshallese, Yapese, Chukese, and I-Kiribati - none of them are really related to Native Americans, and thus I believe they make a distinction, and might resent to being lumped into a single term with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using 'Indian' is confusing, because there are many people from India.

Pre-European Americans is perhaps the most accurate. Perhaps just use the date, as people of various ethnicities moved to the Americas in short order after around 1500. Pre-1492 Americans (year Columbus arrived in the Caribbean)?

'Indigenous' is a strange term to use, as many people who aren't pre-1500 Americans have roots going back hundreds of years. In certain areas, they have been in that region longer than certain tribes who migrated within known history.

First Nations (typically used in Canada) gives the gist of things, but it suggests the ancestors of people living in a certain area when Europeans arrived were the first to live there. But often there's little evidence to support that (and given multiple waves settling the Americas, internal displacement, conquering, and so on, seems unlikely as a general statement).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

in the Last Great Ice about 400 000 to 600 000 years ago

I think the standard view is around 15,000 years ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I think the standard view is around 15,000 years ...

Still, a huge gap of time before the Inuit, Yupik, and Aleuts, who came by boat, after the landbridge was submerged, and came recently enough to have traceably-related ethnic, cultural, and linguistic relatives in Eastern Siberia to this day, unlike the racial, genetic, and geographic large grouping of people who are classically viewed as "Indigenous Peoples of the Western Hemisphere," as a whole. This is a big part of the reason for a regard in distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, wolves said:

in many parts of the world colonialism has ended races, e.g. Aboriginals in Australia,

Small-pox and other diseases were the primary driver for a decrease in numbers of indigenous Australians after contact with Europeans.

However, it seems their numbers have rebounded to a significant degree.

"As of 30 June 2016, the count was 798,365, or 3.3% of Australia's population"

while standard estimate is about 500,000-1M pre-European contact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Still, a huge gap of time before the Inuit, Yupik, and Aleuts, who came by boat, after the landbridge was submerged, and came recently enough to have traceably-related ethnic, cultural, and linguistic relatives in Eastern Siberia to this day, unlike the racial, genetic, and geographic large grouping of people who are classically viewed as "Indigenous Peoples of the Western Hemisphere," as a whole. This is a big part of the reason for a regard in distinction.

Yes, looks like peopling of the continents might have been a pretty complex process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...