harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) (09/17/88)
In article <242@wucs1.wustl.edu> jps@wucs1.UUCP (James Sterbenz) writes: >Even in the U.S. "native americans" [sic] (yes, "indians" [sic] >are the REAL native >americans) have non-standard forms. It is beyond dispute that "American Indian" and its derivative "Amerindian" are bad names based on mistaken geography. A better name should be in use, but "native American" is not it. Anyone native to either American continent qualifies as a native American: it is parochial and exclusionary to think otherwise. It is downright rude to tell us that we are not REAL native Americans. I believe that a retraction is in order. Mr. Sterbenz? -- Doug Harper Odyssey Research Associates | oravax!harper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu ARPA 301A Harris B. Dates Drive | {allegra,rochester}!cornell!oravax!harper UUCP Ithaca, NY 14850-3051 | (607) 277-2020 extension 257
wbralick@icc.afit.arpa (William A. Bralick Jr.) (09/18/88)
In article <474@oravax.UUCP> harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) writes: >It is beyond dispute that "American Indian" and its derivative >"Amerindian" are bad names based on mistaken geography. A better name >should be in use, but "native American" is not it. I use the term, North (or South) American aborigines, since these cultures are each "one of the original or earliest known inhabitants of a country or region" [The Random House College Dictionary, 1984: pg 4]. Unfortunately, this term sometimes also carries the idea of "primitiveness." What is preferred? Will
jps@wucs1.wustl.edu (James Sterbenz) (09/19/88)
In article <474@oravax.UUCP> harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) writes: >In article <242@wucs1.wustl.edu> jps@wucs1.UUCP (James Sterbenz) writes: >>Even in the U.S. "native americans" [sic] (yes, "indians" [sic] >>are the REAL native >americans) have non-standard forms. >... Anyone native to >either American continent qualifies as a native American: it is >parochial and exclusionary to think otherwise. It is downright rude to >tell us that we are not REAL native Americans. I believe that a >retraction is in order. I was merely recognizing that {American Indians, Native Americans, The branch of the Mongoloid Race which crossed the Asian-North American land bridge to originally settle in the North American continent} were here first. I was trying to be polite, and this is how I beleive {...}'s like to be refered to. If not, I'd like to hear from someone of the aforementioned race. I wasn't starting a debate on what to call members of the {...} race. RETRACTION?? Get real... half :-) -- James Sterbenz Computer and Communications Research Center Washington University in St. Louis 314-726-4203 INTERNET: jps@wucs1.wustl.edu UUCP: wucs1!jps@uunet.uu.net
eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) (09/20/88)
In article <599@afit-ab.arpa> William A. Bralick Jr. writes: > What is preferred? Anthropologists and linguists use the neologism 'Amerind'. I think this is the preferred term. -- Eric S. Raymond (the mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews) UUCP: ...!{uunet,att,rutgers}!snark!eric = eric@snark.UUCP Post: 22 S. Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355 Phone: (215)-296-5718
smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) (09/21/88)
>I was merely recognizing that {American Indians, Native Americans, The >branch of the Mongoloid Race which crossed the Asian-North American >land bridge to originally settle in the North American continent} >were here first. I was trying to be polite, and this is how I beleive Are you combining all three immigrations into one? That would be like combining Viking, Spanish, Portuguese, French, and English immigrations. As far as what they wish to be called--the Greeks called themselves civilised and everybody else baa-baa-barbarians. The Real name for China translates into the Middle Kingdom--as if China is the center of world.
cl@datlog.co.uk (Charles Lambert) (09/22/88)
In article <474@oravax.UUCP> harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) writes: > > A better name should be in use, but "native American" is not it. "Aboriginal" is, I beleive, the anthropological adjective. ----------- Charlie
miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) (09/28/88)
In article <289@wucs1.wustl.edu>, jps@wucs1.wustl.edu (James Sterbenz) writes: > In article <474@oravax.UUCP> harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) writes: > >In article <242@wucs1.wustl.edu> jps@wucs1.UUCP (James Sterbenz) writes: > >>Even in the U.S. "native americans" [sic] (yes, "indians" [sic] > >>are the REAL native >americans) have non-standard forms. > > >... Anyone native to > >either American continent qualifies as a native American: it is > >parochial and exclusionary to think otherwise. It is downright rude to > >tell us that we are not REAL native Americans. I believe that a > >retraction is in order. > > I was merely recognizing that {American Indians, Native Americans, The > branch of the Mongoloid Race which crossed the Asian-North American > land bridge to originally settle in the North American continent} > were here first. I was trying to be polite, and this is how I beleive > {...}'s like to be refered to. If not, I'd like to hear from someone > of the aforementioned race. Well, I'm part Osage, and the issue of what to call "us" has always been a confused one. "Amerinds" is usually somewhat preferred to "American Indians", as well as being more accepted by the academic community. "Aboriginal Americans" or "American Aboriginies" are also usually considered OK, and are also common terms in academe. "Native Americans" seems to be somewhat out of fashion, possibly due to the confusion factor mentioned above. This also applies, more strongly, to just plain "Indians." Personally, I'm not too picky about it, but some are. I WOULD like for pure-white folks to be persistently reminded that they weren't here first, and that they took over the joint from somebody else. The use of some of these terms emphasizes this. Actually, I'd like to see a little more emphasis on individual tribes rather than on conglomerating us together as a single unit. There's as much difference between the Osage and the Kennebec as there is between residents of the USA and residents of Albania. Remember that many Amerind leaders always considered rival tribes to be the REAL enemy--whites were considered to be a minor distraction always getting in the way of the real business of slaughtering {Kiowas, Cherokees, insert your favorite enemy tribes here}. Dumb, but that's the way it was. > I wasn't starting a debate on what to call > members of the {...} race. RETRACTION?? Get real... half :-) My feelings exactly. No retraction necessary. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." -Thomas Jefferson