Question: Indians or Native Americans

[CrAz3D]

Even thought yall only know me the intertubes, yall know I'm not exactly PC. I'll joke about race/sex/nationality so long as the joke is funny.

Anyhow, I say indian, my gf says indian (but corrects herself to native american).

So which is it?

(1) Indians are from the country India.
(2) Native Americans aren't native, but their ancestors came across the Bering Straight, and are, therefore, not "native" in the sense that their blood line originated in the Americas.

I assert that neither term is politically or technically correct. "Native Americans" = MORE politically correct because...who knows, but it isn't technically correct. Further, while I acknowledge white people slaughtered indians, I reference history to show that tribes killed tribes. In other words, what "we" did is not any worse than what "they" did to each other.

Summarized Q: what do yall think of the history and terminology of american indians?

[iago]

I use the term 'aboriginals' or, on occasion, 'natives'. The term 'indian' has negative consequences for the native folks, and is normally confusing, so I avoid it.

[Joe]

Aboriginal is mostly only used in Canada and Australia/New Zealand.

Native American is the most politically correct, even if it's incorrect. It's like how you call any black guy an African American without caring where he came from, but if a white guy holds a dual citizenship and calls himself African/American, you can expect a shitstorm.

Indian is just plain incorrect.

Most of them who I've met have referred to themselves as "natives". In Wisconsin Dells there's a large population of them (the school's team name is Wisconsin Dells Chiefs) and they all say "natives" to refer to their collective, of sorts.

[CrAz3D]

iago, "native" is also technically incorrect, so why use it?

joe, I have black friends that (a) dont care, but (b) take offense to "african" american because they are puerto rican. Further, why is "indian" plan wrong? I agree that technically indian is wrong (i.e., those people arent from india), but they also are not NATIVE to america. Therefore, both terms are incorrect. I feel that if one wants to be PC/TC (i.e., technically correct), one should refer to the group of people by tribal membership.

Further, I know many "natives" that are from tribes/puebos (huge difference) in NM that are not from NM. And again, the ancestry precedes ANYONE from being in NM/the Americas. So what is the best to use? NA is the PC term to use, but again, it's actually WRONG.

When a person confronts me about my terminology I'll accept the person's assertion/correction so long as it is technically correct. However, Native American is technically wrong, so I cannot accept that. Either I'll be un-PC, or use a technically correct term (which I have no heard of).

[iago]

iago, "native" is also technically incorrect, so why use it?

"European" is technically incorrect, too - we all come from Africa (or Eden )

They've been here longer than anybody else, so it makes sense.

"Aboriginal" is the preferred term here.

Why don't you ask *them* what *they* want to be called? Declaring names better or worse should be their job, not yours.

[CrAz3D]

I agree with asking "them" what "they" want to be called. That said, I wont know until I ask them, SO I must refer to "them" as whateverthehell I feel like, I think.

[dark_drake]

"European" is technically incorrect, too - we all come from Africa (or Eden )

Oh please! Eden was in America. Probably Texas.

[Sidoh]

"European" is technically incorrect, too - we all come from Africa (or Eden )

Oh please! Eden was in America. Probably Texas.

Missouri, actually.

iago, "native" is also technically incorrect, so why use it?

"European" is technically incorrect, too - we all come from Africa (or Eden )

They've been here longer than anybody else, so it makes sense.

"Aboriginal" is the preferred term here.

Why don't you ask *them* what *they* want to be called? Declaring names better or worse should be their job, not yours.

I agree with asking "them" what "they" want to be called. That said, I wont know until I ask them, SO I must refer to "them" as whateverthehell I feel like, I think.

That's all well and good, but considering there are dozens of distinct peoples that only relate to each other because we have lumped them into the same group, you'll probably find no satisfaction in seeking a single unifying term.

[MyndFyre]

I have the solution.

Dot or feather?

[deadly7]

I have the solution.

Dot or feather?

lawls

As an Indian I dislike having Columbus' fail geography be the sole reason that people are called Indian. Then again, because of globalization, cultural lines are extremely blurred to the point where it makes little sense to still be differentiating. If we have to call them something though, I would opt with "native american" or "native".

[CrAz3D]

I have the solution.

Dot or feather?

Apparently that is also offensive. WTF?

/joking, kinda

I've met feather-indians and dot-indians that also ask/are amused by the question. However, gf in "multicultural bullshit" class has informed me that question is offensive.

[deadly7]

Apparently that is also offensive. WTF?

/joking, kinda

I've met feather-indians and dot-indians that also ask/are amused by the question. However, gf in "multicultural bullshit" class has informed me that question is offensive.

I love when white people try to convince me something should offend me.

[CrAz3D]

Someone suggested that "American Indian" is probably the best "anglo" general term to use. I guess that makes sense (except there people that refer to themselves as Indian-America . . . just like Mexican-Americans).

[iago]

Next can we talk about whether it's okay to say 'gay', 'fag', 'queer', etc etc?

[CrAz3D]

I use the term homosexual or gay (but gay "offends" me because ... something about calling someone "happy").

That said, yeah, I do lol when people get offended when a 3rd person says "that's gay" in a negative tone.