Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

That's an understandable stance, but you shouldn't be correcting other people on it if you don't really have a strong basis for it.

[smjjames]

Point taken, though I thought using the word Indian was generally insulting, which is why I was correcting it. It's incorrect anyway because it arose from Christopher Columbus thinking he was in or near India.

[Mephansteras]

Personally, I use Native American because I'm in IT and work with a ton of people from India and I like to have clarity. Although, given a chance I'll try to use the name of the specific tribe in question rather than the generic term if I know it and it's a local issue.

[Teneb]

Point taken, though I thought using the word Indian was generally insulting, which is why I was correcting it. It's incorrect anyway because it arose from Christopher Columbus thinking he was in or near India.

Actually, it was because the Spanish and Portuguese called the continent "the Indies" to keep rivals such as the English and French in the dark for as long as possible. They knew very well there was something to the west that was not Asia even before Columbus made his trip.

[mainiac]

Columbus, the man that launched 1000 myths.

[scriver]

I'm afraid I'm going to need a little more basis than one post on the internet before I change my mind about that.

[smjjames]

Either way, it makes sense as far as the naming goes.

Turns out Huckabee is one of those joining up with Trump at the veterans event: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/mike-huckabee-joins-trump-iowa-218339 He's still doing the undercard debate though. I wonder who the second person is that's joining Trump though.

[Lord Shonus]

ftfy

The word was in common usage by the mid 18th century, hence the name of the country.

I've been thinking lately abut why so much reverence is given to "the Founding Fathers" and their supposed interpretation of what the United States was supposed to be. I mean, you respect your national founders, that's a given. But you don't see Brits going "This isn't the England that William the Conqueror would have wanted". It's been 240 years, I think it's time to stop worrying about what America is supposed to be according to various diviners of the will of long-dead men, and start worrying about what *we* want America to be.

It's important because it provides a reference point and standard.  If someone wants to call themself a later day son of liberty then they should be prepared to ask why they are unwilling to show the patience and willingness to compromise that the actual sons of liberty showed.

More importantly, a law MUST be interpreted in the context it was made, lest technological advancements or linguistic drift alter the law by themselves. It would be very easy, without such context, to judge that atheists have no protection under the First Amendment (which in raw test simply forbids establishment of an official church or government interference in religious services), or the 4th Amendment would not protect anything you have in The Cloud or any of your business dealings with another party (as these are not part of your "home, papers, or effects" due to being owned by a third party), just to name two examples.  Looking at the papers and correspondence of the Founding Fathers makes it quite clear that the intention was for government to butt out of religious affairs (including those that involved the complete lack of any religion) entirely, and that the 4th Amendment was intended to include your letters and such. 

[Willfor]

the founding fathers irl

[Bouchart]

Proof that Ted Cruz is unqualified to be president

[Cruxador]

My country was founded on the idea of basically killing Frenchmen for sport and doing cross-country hikes through Belgium. That doesn't mean it's still a good idea.

It does sound like a jolly good time though.

Hm, not sure what I should use then...

For the group as a whole, just say "Indian", it's common parlance. Or whatever, it doesn't really matter because

I haven't met with any Amerindian in real life.

Chances are you're not going to offend anybody regardless of what term you use.

If you do want to be respectful though, try using the actual correct name for the nation or ethnocultural group in question instead of lumping them all together. In this case the relevant group are Moapa (tribe/nation) Paiutes (ethnocultural group).

Well, for me, it's largely not knowing what people prefer and Native American (or Native Peoples) when referring to indian peoples in general is the most neutral term, I believe.

It's one of those things that doesn't really matter. Even if it's more or less neutral, which is debateable, the difference is pretty inconsequential compared to denying the diversity of an entire continent's worth of largely unrelated groups.

It's not that I haven't had some exposure to Native American cultures and, well, honestly, I'm, well, I don't know how to explain it, just out of not having met and personally known anybody who is Amerindian.

Then why are you concerned about trying to be politically correct in the first place? If you're ignorant, trying to appear tolerant and understanding is simply patronizing and deceptive.

Nobody on the net that I've known to be Native American have complained about using the term, so...

Why would they? If people brought up everything that a member of a majority group says that's well-intentioned but patronizing, what good would come of it?

Point taken, though I thought using the word Indian was generally insulting, which is why I was correcting it. It's incorrect anyway because it arose from Christopher Columbus thinking he was in or near India.

It's only used for India because of the Indus river which has no real relation to southern or eastern parts of the country. Just like white people are often called "Caucasian" despite not having anything really to do with the Caucasus Range. It's just a name, it's common parlance so who cares? The reason I think some people find "Native American" to be more offensive is that you're already going out of your way to say something unusual, but since it doesn't actually address the main functional problem of the common term (lumping a whole ton of unrelated cultures and societies together) it only serves to let you feel self-righteous about it.

I'm afraid I'm going to need a little more basis than one post on the internet before I change my mind about that.

What, that a children's rhyme is wrong? Columbus obviously couldn't steal much by 1493 because he only had a few ships' worth of people with him. And even going out from that, the actions of Spain were more of a traditional conquest and military engagement without the large-scale genocide and displacement of French and English colonization. The Spanish were coming off of having to populate the Canaries so they understood the value of local people, and while they were not that good about preserving local cultures, this really was only the case when those cultures were associated with religious values. The primary missions were to save the people of the New World from damnation and to extract gold, not to take land. Columbus didn't really do any of this though, while he didn't exactly treat the local people with the highest respect, it was pretty standard for what happens when different cultures meet and he's mostly demonized for the things that followed in his wake rather than his actual actions.

[smjjames]

Hm, not sure what I should use then...

For the group as a whole, just say "Indian", it's common parlance. Or whatever, it doesn't really matter because

I haven't met with any Amerindian in real life.

Chances are you're not going to offend anybody regardless of what term you use.

If you do want to be respectful though, try using the actual correct name for the nation or ethnocultural group in question instead of lumping them all together. In this case the relevant group are Moapa (tribe/nation) Paiutes (ethnocultural group).

I would have said the name of the tribe, but forgot what the tribe was.

[Shadowlord]

News articles keep saying "Burns Paiute."

[sluissa]

ftfy

The word was in common usage by the mid 18th century, hence the name of the country.

I've been thinking lately abut why so much reverence is given to "the Founding Fathers" and their supposed interpretation of what the United States was supposed to be. I mean, you respect your national founders, that's a given. But you don't see Brits going "This isn't the England that William the Conqueror would have wanted". It's been 240 years, I think it's time to stop worrying about what America is supposed to be according to various diviners of the will of long-dead men, and start worrying about what *we* want America to be.

It's important because it provides a reference point and standard.  If someone wants to call themself a later day son of liberty then they should be prepared to ask why they are unwilling to show the patience and willingness to compromise that the actual sons of liberty showed.

More importantly, a law MUST be interpreted in the context it was made, lest technological advancements or linguistic drift alter the law by themselves. It would be very easy, without such context, to judge that atheists have no protection under the First Amendment (which in raw test simply forbids establishment of an official church or government interference in religious services), or the 4th Amendment would not protect anything you have in The Cloud or any of your business dealings with another party (as these are not part of your "home, papers, or effects" due to being owned by a third party), just to name two examples.  Looking at the papers and correspondence of the Founding Fathers makes it quite clear that the intention was for government to butt out of religious affairs (including those that involved the complete lack of any religion) entirely, and that the 4th Amendment was intended to include your letters and such.

We're still following the laws they wrote 240-ish years ago. The constitution and its amendments are the sole test by which an entire third of the government runs and keeps the other parts in check. Dump that document and we can dump the opinions of the people who wrote it. As long as it's there, though, we must keep their intent in mind.

[RedKing]

Considering their intent was a system by which slavery was legal and women couldn't vote, I'd say we've already dumped a fair portion of their intent.