On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 03:14:47 GMT, "Matt Nemmers"
wrote:

It's okay to say "Indian." In fact, every Indian I've ever spoken to
prefers that to the en vogue, politically correct "Native American." Just
ask the American Indian Movement (AIM).

You can't go wrong using the name of the individual's tribe.

Mike Murray wrote in
message . ..
"Matt Nemmers" wrote:
It's okay to say "Indian."

Using only "Indian" has the drawback of not making any distinction between
"American Indian" and "Asian Indian" when sometimes such clarity is desirable
or necessary.

In fact, every Indian I've ever spoken to prefers that to the en vogue,
politically correct "Native American."

In Canada, "First Nation" is the preferred usage.

Just ask the American Indian Movement (AIM).

The name, "American Indian Movement", seems to have been chosen 30+ years
ago, perhaps at least partly due to the historical associations at that time
(such as a response to the U.S. government's "Bureau of Indian Affairs").

The name, "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People"
(NAACP), was chosen in 1909, when the people known as "African Americans"
today were routinely called "colored people" in the United States.
But I doubt that a NAACP member today would welcome being addressed only
as a "colored person" rather than something else.

You can't go wrong using the name of the individual's tribe.

That should be true if you know that the individual identifies himself or
herself as belonging to one and only one tribe and you use the same name for
it that he or she prefers (e.g. 'Lakota' or 'Sioux'?).

--Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
om...
Mike Murray wrote in
message . ..
"Matt Nemmers" wrote:
It's okay to say "Indian."

SNIP

Every time I do some sort of survey that asks me what I am (e.g. white,
black, etc.) I always mark "Native American."

**** it......I'm an American and I was born in the United States. I'm a
god-damned native. "Native American."

Regards,

Big Chief Matt

On 19 Dec 2003 16:29:50 -0800, (Nick) wrote:

Using only "Indian" has the drawback of not making any distinction between
"American Indian" and "Asian Indian" when sometimes such clarity is desirable
or necessary.

In fact, every Indian I've ever spoken to prefers that to the en vogue,
politically correct "Native American."

In Canada, "First Nation" is the preferred usage.

Just ask the American Indian Movement (AIM).

The name, "American Indian Movement", seems to have been chosen 30+ years
ago, perhaps at least partly due to the historical associations at that time
(such as a response to the U.S. government's "Bureau of Indian Affairs").

The name, "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People"
(NAACP), was chosen in 1909, when the people known as "African Americans"
today were routinely called "colored people" in the United States.
But I doubt that a NAACP member today would welcome being addressed only
as a "colored person" rather than something else.

Such current writers as Sherman Alexie and James Welch routinely use
"Indian". The attitude I've heard expressed: "Native American" is
somebody else's name, same as "Indian" -- might as well use the latter
-- it's shorter.

You can't go wrong using the name of the individual's tribe.

That should be true if you know that the individual identifies himself or
herself as belonging to one and only one tribe and you use the same name for
it that he or she prefers (e.g. 'Lakota' or 'Sioux'?).

Just like everybody else, even the Scotch -- oops.


--Nick

(ASCACHESS) wrote in message ...
(snipped)
My wife, who is Sri Lankan, has no Americanization where issues of skin color
are concerned and I am referred to by her family as a big white man.

I do *not* accept the routine United States labels for an individual person's
racial appearance or identity as imposing a universal standard.

For example, someone racially identified as "white" in the United States
could also be racially identified as "black" in Brazil.

"What I realized is that even though I'm mathematically Asian--if anything--if
you have one drop of black blood in the United States, you're black."
--Tiger Woods (23 December 1996, "Sports Illustrated")

(Tiger Woods's ethnic ancestry has been described as: 1/4 Thai, 1/4 Chinese,
1/4 African, 1/8 Dutch, 1/8 'American Indian'.)

Tourists are regularly referred to as Lobster people since they go out to the
beach and deliberately try to get darker, but usually end up the same color
as a lobster.

Life is not nearly as complicated there as here.

That might be true if one could ignore the quite protracted, bitter, and
bloody civil war in Sri Lanka between, in general terms, the Sinhalese
majority and a Tamil separatist minority.

For further reading:
"Only Man is Vile: the Tragedy of Sri Lanka" by William McGowan (1991)

--Nick

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in
message news:B2NEb.605785$Fm2.549409@attbi_s04...
(snipped)
Every time I do some sort of survey that asks me what I am
(e.g. white, black, etc.) I always mark "Native American."

But would Jerome Bibuld prefer to mark "Native United Statesian"? :-)

**** it......I'm an American and I was born in the United States.
I'm a god-damned native. "Native American."

I believe that Bob Musicant made a good point (writing to Rolf Tueschen).

"He concluded, correctly I think, that because of certain group histories,
words that might be considered neutral when applied to one group have quite
a different meaning when applied to a different group....I have a friend who
was born in a displaced persons camp...in Belgium shortly after the end of
WWII. He entered the US as an infant, and has spent his whole life in the U.S.
On occasion, I would kid him about not being a real American, of just being
a 'damn Belge' trying to pass. To the extent that there is any, admittedly
minimal, humor in this, it is that it is essentially impossible in American
culture to insult someone from Belgium on the basis of ancestry or group
identity. The same sort of 'humor' directed towards an American of Japanese
ancestry would be another matter altogether, given the history of the treatment
of Japanese within the U.S. Thus, *same words, very different meaning*.
I don't think it is mere political correctness that should guide one's speech
in this regard."
--Bob Musicant (7 November 2003)

Here's a related example:

On one hand, I know a British woman (she was born in Scotland and grew up in
England) who teaches at a university in the United States. Although she has
lived in the United States for many years, she has declined to become a United
States citizen. Occasionally, her American students have told her--jokingly--
that she, a specialist in United States history, has no right to criticise the
United States because she "*is* not a real American". It's true that she's not
a United States citizen and her English retains its British accent.

On the other hand, her husband was born and grew up in the United States,
and he speaks fluent English with an American accent. Sometimes in the United
States he has been told--evidently seriously, even by some Americans who know
that he's a United States citizen by birth--that he "*cannot* be a real
American" on account of his racial appearance, which is East Asian.

So she's not a United States citizen, and she speaks English with a British
accent. He's a United States citizen by birth, and he speaks English with
an American accent. But evidently he has experienced significantly more
discrimination than she has on account of being perceived as not a "real
American" in the United States. The critical distinction has been one of
their difference in racial appearance, to which most Americans evidently
continue to attach importance.

Big Chief Matt

When did the United States government's Bureau of Indian Affairs appoint
Matt Nemmers as the "Big Chief"?

--Nick

Dear Mr. Bourbaki,

Heil Dubya!

My standard answer to that "question" is "human". Nemmers, of course is
telling the truth, IN THIS CASE. He is a "native American", as are about 900
million other humans born from the Arctic (Baffin Bay?) to Tierra del Fuego.

(Incidentally, I think you are in error concerning your belief in "racial
appearance", but that's something that we should discuss face to face. I
appreciate your email messages, but am too lazy to go into it in detailed
writing.)

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in
message news:B2NEb.605785$Fm2.549409@attbi_s04...
(snipped)
Every time I do some sort of survey that asks me what I am
(e.g. white, black, etc.) I always mark "Native American."

But would Jerome Bibuld prefer to mark "Native United Statesian"? :-)

**** it......I'm an American and I was born in the United States.
I'm a god-damned native. "Native American."

I believe that Bob Musicant made a good point (writing to Rolf Tueschen).

"He concluded, correctly I think, that because of certain group histories,
words that might be considered neutral when applied to one group have quite
a different meaning when applied to a different group....I have a friend who
was born in a displaced persons camp...in Belgium shortly after the end of
WWII. He entered the US as an infant, and has spent his whole life in the
U.S.
On occasion, I would kid him about not being a real American, of just being
a 'damn Belge' trying to pass. To the extent that there is any, admittedly
minimal, humor in this, it is that it is essentially impossible in American
culture to insult someone from Belgium on the basis of ancestry or group
identity. The same sort of 'humor' directed towards an American of Japanese
ancestry would be another matter altogether, given the history of the
treatment
of Japanese within the U.S. Thus, *same words, very different meaning*.
I don't think it is mere political correctness that should guide one's speech
in this regard."
--Bob Musicant (7 November 2003)

Here's a related example:

On one hand, I know a British woman (she was born in Scotland and grew up in
England) who teaches at a university in the United States. Although she has
lived in the United States for many years, she has declined to become a
United
States citizen. Occasionally, her American students have told
her--jokingly--
that she, a specialist in United States history, has no right to criticise
the
United States because she "*is* not a real American". It's true that she's
not
a United States citizen and her English retains its British accent.

On the other hand, her husband was born and grew up in the United States,
and he speaks fluent English with an American accent. Sometimes in the
United
States he has been told--evidently seriously, even by some Americans who know
that he's a United States citizen by birth--that he "*cannot* be a real
American" on account of his racial appearance, which is East Asian.

So she's not a United States citizen, and she speaks English with a British
accent. He's a United States citizen by birth, and he speaks English with
an American accent. But evidently he has experienced significantly more
discrimination than she has on account of being perceived as not a "real
American" in the United States. The critical distinction has been one of
their difference in racial appearance, to which most Americans evidently
continue to attach importance.

Big Chief Matt

When did the United States government's Bureau of Indian Affairs appoint
Matt Nemmers as the "Big Chief"?

--Nick


Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka über Alles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristallnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
(I go on trial at 77 Lexington Avenue, White Plains, NY, at 1400 hours, 5
January, for refusing to move away from a demonstration site -- against the U.
S. invasion of Iraq -- when ordered by a member of the Army of Occupation of
Westchester County, despite the fact that the demonstrators had a "permit" to
do exactly what I was doing, at the time and place I was doing it. Twice, the
U. S. INjustice system has postponed trial, in a case which should be dismissed
out of hand. But, of course, that's part of the system. This takes up MY time
-- and that of my lawyer, whose time is worth more than I'm PAYING him.
Meanwhile, the judges, assistant district attorneys, court clerks, bailiffs,
stenotypists and other apparatchniks are being paid by MY taxes and the taxes
of other citizens and subjects of the United States. My son, Douglass, has
coined a lovely and apt phrase that I am proud to use: HYPOCRISY, NOT
DEMOCRACY!)
gens una sumus

"Nick" wrote
... I know a British woman (she was born in Scotland and grew up in
England) who teaches at a university in the United States. Although she has
lived in the United States for many years, she has declined to become a United
States citizen. Occasionally, her American students have told her--jokingly--
that she, a specialist in United States history, has no right to criticise the
United States because she "*is* not a real American".

"Occasionally" this is so. See below.

It's true that she's not
a United States citizen and her English retains its British accent.

On the other hand, her husband was born and grew up in the United States,
and he speaks fluent English with an American accent. Sometimes in the United
States he has been told--evidently seriously, even by some Americans who know
that he's a United States citizen by birth--that he "*cannot* be a real
American" on account of his racial appearance, which is East Asian.

"Sometimes" this happens. See below.


So she's not a United States citizen, and she speaks English with a British
accent. He's a United States citizen by birth, and he speaks English with
an American accent. But evidently he has experienced significantly more
discrimination than she has on account of being perceived as not a "real
American" in the United States.

Accepted as true for the sake of the arguement. See below.

The critical distinction has been one of
their difference in racial appearance, to which most Americans evidently
continue to attach importance.

Please don't let the few rotten (ignorant) apples affect your opinion of the entire barrel.

You yourself state that 'occasionally' she is told this, and that 'sometimes' he is told that, yet he seems to experience the
discrimination more significantly due to his appearance. Please, do not allow yourself to conclude that 'most' Americans attach
such importance to racial appearance. It is true that in the past Americans have been quite bigoted when it comes to race and/or
religion. But much of that has changed. Perhaps 'most' is still accurate, but I do believe it is significantly 'less' than before.

REC

Dear Mr. Bourbaki,

Heil Dubya!

"REC" may speak for most United Statesians, but he speaks for practically NO
colonials of my knowledge -- and I live and spend most of my time amongst
colonials within the military control of the United States. It is true that we
have our Colin Powells and Condoleeza Rices, but their influence among the
rulers of the U. S. A. is NIL, although they are given much "photo-op" time.

The big difference is that the rulers learned from the "Civil Rights Movement"
that one must not only have tokens, but that they must be prominently
publicised.

Please note that REC concludes that "Perhaps 'most' is still accurate, but I do
believe it is significantly 'less' than before." The simple fact is that "Jim
Crow" is alive and well in the U. S. A. a dozen years after the installation of
the ANC government in South Africa. There were NO exceptions before the "Civil
Rights Movement." Today, there are exceptions -- for individuals who spend ALL
their time in official circles.

The very fact that we are discussing this subject under the subject of "My
Experience with Native Americans" is proof of my point. One of the contibutors
to this thread "corrected" a statement about the Sioux nations (there are
THREE) by calling them "properly" Lakota. This ignoramus was not corrected,
because no one who participated cared to know that the Lakota are only one of
the Sioux nations.

In short the U. S. A. still is the most racist state extant. It merely has
become more sophisticated in its racism.

"Nick" wrote
... I know a British woman (she was born in Scotland and grew up in
England) who teaches at a university in the United States. Although she
has
lived in the United States for many years, she has declined to become a
United
States citizen. Occasionally, her American students have told
her--jokingly--
that she, a specialist in United States history, has no right to criticise
the
United States because she "*is* not a real American".

"Occasionally" this is so. See below.

It's true that she's not
a United States citizen and her English retains its British accent.

On the other hand, her husband was born and grew up in the United States,
and he speaks fluent English with an American accent. Sometimes in the
United
States he has been told--evidently seriously, even by some Americans who
know
that he's a United States citizen by birth--that he "*cannot* be a real
American" on account of his racial appearance, which is East Asian.

"Sometimes" this happens. See below.


So she's not a United States citizen, and she speaks English with a British
accent. He's a United States citizen by birth, and he speaks English with
an American accent. But evidently he has experienced significantly more
discrimination than she has on account of being perceived as not a "real
American" in the United States.

Accepted as true for the sake of the arguement. See below.

The critical distinction has been one of
their difference in racial appearance, to which most Americans evidently
continue to attach importance.

Please don't let the few rotten (ignorant) apples affect your opinion of the
entire barrel.

You yourself state that 'occasionally' she is told this, and that 'sometimes'
he is told that, yet he seems to experience the
discrimination more significantly due to his appearance. Please, do not
allow yourself to conclude that 'most' Americans attach
such importance to racial appearance. It is true that in the past Americans
have been quite bigoted when it comes to race and/or
religion. But much of that has changed. Perhaps 'most' is still accurate,
but I do believe it is significantly 'less' than before.

REC


Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka über Alles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristallnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
(I go on trial at 77 Lexington Avenue, White Plains, NY, at 1400 hours, 5
January, for refusing to move away from a demonstration site -- against the U.
S. invasion of Iraq -- when ordered by a member of the Army of Occupation of
Westchester County, despite the fact that the demonstrators had a "permit" to
do exactly what I was doing, at the time and place I was doing it. Twice, the
U. S. INjustice system has postponed trial, in a case which should be dismissed
out of hand. But, of course, that's part of the system. This takes up MY time
-- and that of my lawyer, whose time is worth more than I'm PAYING him.
Meanwhile, the judges, assistant district attorneys, court clerks, bailiffs,
stenotypists and other apparatchniks are being paid by MY taxes and the taxes
of other citizens and subjects of the United States. My son, Douglass, has
coined a lovely and apt phrase that I am proud to use: HYPOCRISY, NOT
DEMOCRACY!)
gens una sumus

I think that there are two important points in this discussion.

1. Sam Sloan's original post was an ill-mannered troll, and should not be
given the dignity of detailed response.

2. It is simple decency to refer to peoples by the name of their choice.

John

PS Nick mentions the expression "First Nations". In Canada, it is standard
usage to refer to groups of Aboriginals as "First Nations". Under
legislation, there is a distinction between Indians, Metis, and Inuit.
FWIW, the term "Eskimo" a derogatory Cree name for the Inuit has gone out of
use in the entire circumpolar region, apart from Alaska. I recently spoke
with an Inuk from Greenland who said "I can't imagine why they would use
that name for themselves!"

"If you don't change with the times, they'll go ahead and change without
you."--John Lennon
"Nick" wrote in message
om...
Mike Murray wrote in
message . ..
"Matt Nemmers" wrote:
It's okay to say "Indian."

Using only "Indian" has the drawback of not making any distinction between
"American Indian" and "Asian Indian" when sometimes such clarity is
desirable
or necessary.

In fact, every Indian I've ever spoken to prefers that to the en
vogue,
politically correct "Native American."

In Canada, "First Nation" is the preferred usage.

Just ask the American Indian Movement (AIM).

The name, "American Indian Movement", seems to have been chosen 30+ years
ago, perhaps at least partly due to the historical associations at that
time
(such as a response to the U.S. government's "Bureau of Indian Affairs").

The name, "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People"
(NAACP), was chosen in 1909, when the people known as "African Americans"
today were routinely called "colored people" in the United States.
But I doubt that a NAACP member today would welcome being addressed only
as a "colored person" rather than something else.

You can't go wrong using the name of the individual's tribe.

That should be true if you know that the individual identifies himself or
herself as belonging to one and only one tribe and you use the same name
for
it that he or she prefers (e.g. 'Lakota' or 'Sioux'?).

--Nick