View previous topic | View next topic

Indians (as in cowboys and...)

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

tetsabb
727794.  Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:17 am Reply with quote

Almost anything is possible when he opens his mouth

 
Woodsman
731824.  Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:37 pm Reply with quote

A bit of confusion here as my wife - the Englishwoman - mistakes me when I refer to Indians, as she is thinking of Indians but not the Indians I'm thinking of. I'll ask her to refer to East Indians, as opposed to American Indians. Reference to Native Americans isn't quite right as I am a native American but not an Indian.

This should be cleared up somehow.

 
PDR
731827.  Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:54 pm Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
Dee Brown's "Bury my heart at Wounded Knee" should be essential reading for anyone studying the history of the USA.


Or the adaption for the big screen in the film called "Avatar".

PDR

 
tetsabb
732098.  Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:19 pm Reply with quote

Woodsman wrote:
A bit of confusion here as my wife - the Englishwoman - mistakes me when I refer to Indians, as she is thinking of Indians but not the Indians I'm thinking of. I'll ask her to refer to East Indians, as opposed to American Indians. Reference to Native Americans isn't quite right as I am a native American but not an Indian.

This should be cleared up somehow.


Purely an issue of pronunciation, possibly?
Injuns could be how to refer to the tribes of people who lived in North America prior to the arrival of the white man (and woman)
In-dee-ann for people from Southern Asia.
The East Indies to me always refers to what is now Indonesia and them parts.
And Woodsman is what is known as a 'colonial' in some quarters.
Sor'ed, innit?
:-)

 
plinkplonk
732101.  Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:29 pm Reply with quote

Woodsman wrote:
A bit of confusion here as my wife - the Englishwoman - mistakes me when I refer to Indians, as she is thinking of Indians but not the Indians I'm thinking of. I'll ask her to refer to East Indians, as opposed to American Indians. Reference to Native Americans isn't quite right as I am a native American but not an Indian.

This should be cleared up somehow.


Aboriginal is clearer than Native though anyway. A native technically just means born, aboriginal means there from the beginning (not quite true either really).

Let's just say the whole thing is politically incorrect and leave it at that...

 
Woodsman
732186.  Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:08 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Aboriginal is clearer than Native though anyway. A native technically just means born, aboriginal means there from the beginning (not quite true either really).


Aboriginal is not used in North America hardly at all for some reason. In Canada, the reference is to First Nation's peoples, which includes Indian and Inuit. In the northeastern US, Indians prefer to be called Indians for the most part - In jun being pejorative. In other parts of the US, Native American is required, Indian being pejorative. There are relatively few In dee anns from the subcontinent, so the confusion usually arises when speaking with a Brit - as noted above.

 
bobwilson
732199.  Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:26 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
bobwilson wrote:
Dee Brown's "Bury my heart at Wounded Knee" should be essential reading for anyone studying the history of the USA.


Or the adaption for the big screen in the film called "Avatar".

PDR


Hardly the same thing PDR.

 
PDR
732223.  Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:42 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
PDR wrote:
bobwilson wrote:
Dee Brown's "Bury my heart at Wounded Knee" should be essential reading for anyone studying the history of the USA.


Or the adaption for the big screen in the film called "Avatar".

PDR


Hardly the same thing PDR.


The plots are closer than for the pearl harbour movie, or for U571. By hollywood standards Avatar would count as plagiarism...

PDR

 
suze
732269.  Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:29 am Reply with quote

Woodsman wrote:
Aboriginal is not used in North America hardly at all for some reason. In Canada, the reference is to First Nation's peoples, which includes Indian and Inuit.


Strictly, the term "First Nations" is supposed to refer only to North American Indians. The Inuit do not consider it to include them, and in any case they were not the first people to inhabit their parts of the continent (the Dorset people were there before them). Neither do the Métis identify as First Nations - and again, they are accurate in not doing, since their ancestry is partly European. "Native Canadians" is rarely used.

The Canadian Constitution does use the term "Aboriginal Peoples of Canada", and defines it as including the Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples of Canada. That hasn't really caught on in popular usage, but seems to be slowly gaining popularity. As for "Indian", Canadian law continues to use it; the people to whom it applies vary as to whether or not they care for it.

It's worth noting that Canada by now has more people whose roots are in South Asia than it has full blooded Aboriginal Peoples - there are about one million, most in and around Toronto and Vancouver. Most of these prefer "Indian" to "East Indian" or "South Asian"; "Desi Canadian" is currently a fairly popular term among those communities, but little used by the white population.

 
Woodsman
732360.  Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:06 pm Reply with quote

Thank you on the correction re First Nations and the Inuit.

Aboriginal Peoples of Canada is a mouthful. But I'm still wondering if the Indians who prefer to call themselves Indian and the people who are 'former' Indians will come to an agreement.

"Desi & Lucy Canadian" ?

 
thedrew
732731.  Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:53 am Reply with quote

Here are some QI, I, and MI (marginally interesting) facts about Indians:

First Nations or First Peoples are unknown terms to most Americans. Aboriginal is strictly understood to refer to Australians here. "American Indian" is probably the least confused reference to the people who greeted European explorers and their descendants, though in recent years "Native American" has risen in popularity.

The United States Constitution makes several references to "Indians" most of which have been rendered moot by Constitutional Amendment. In several places the Constitution says, "excluding Indians not Taxed, and three-fifths All other Persons," (slaves, horribly, were considered 3/5th human for enumeration purposes).

One reference that remains valid is that "Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian Tribes.” This restricts State and local authority from regulating Native American tribes. (I had a very upbeat meeting with the local Tribal Elders Council last week. I did not pretend to know their Tribal protocol and used standard American government salutation: "Mr. Chairman and Honorable Tribal Elders." Those last three words sounded like they came from the lips of a barbarous cavalry officer in an Old Western film!)

Most Americans know it is very rude to say "how" to any Indians (including the pun, "How do you do?"). The local greeting is "haku." There are of course hundreds of American Indian languages, and each had its own greetings. The origin of "how" is likely to come from "ho," or "hau" from the Plains Indians, where the word normally ment, "Well," "So," or "Now look here." It's as if "Oi" or "Hey" were thought to be the formal greeting of the English language.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs was originally housed in the United States Department of War. In 1849 it was transfered to the Department of the Interior. Today the Bureau of Indian Affairs administered 55 million acres of land held in trust by the United States Government for the 564 Federally Recognized Tribes. Housed within it is the Bureau of Indian Education, which was originally intended to stamp out Native languages, culture, and traditions, but is now a promoter of them. The BIA also funds the tribal police forces, and tribal courts. The current Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs is Larry EchoHawk. Though not the first Native American to hold the post, he is the first with a native surname.

Blood quantum reform (i.e. too few people are "pure" enough to meet tribal definitions of descent) and soverenity (including the issuance of passports) are major tribal issues getting press coverage in the past few months.

 
plinkplonk
733086.  Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:33 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Most Americans know it is very rude to say "how" to any Indians (including the pun, "How do you do?"). The local greeting is "haku." There are of course hundreds of American Indian languages, and each had its own greetings. The origin of "how" is likely to come from "ho," or "hau" from the Plains Indians, where the word normally ment, "Well," "So," or "Now look here." It's as if "Oi" or "Hey" were thought to be the formal greeting of the English language.


Still I can't imagine a 60s/70s children's programme entitled Haku!

 
Woodsman
733324.  Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:49 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
One reference that remains valid is that "Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian Tribes.” This restricts State and local authority from regulating Native American tribes.


The one exception is Maine, where the primary relationship had been between the state and the tribes with no federal recognition. This goes back to early treaties.

From a land claims settlement in 1980, the federals are now, as of 1980 for 3 tribes and 1991 for a fourth, trustee for the tribes. But the state can still regulate certain activities, which generally causes friction between the tribes and the state.

See at:

www.mitsc.org/documents/42_nativeamericansovereignty.pdf

See Page 7 right column.

 
Efros
733326.  Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:56 pm Reply with quote

That, amongst other things, probably explains the lack of casinos in Maine.

 
Woodsman
734608.  Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:21 pm Reply with quote

The sovereignty thing can get tricky; see commentary here:

http://www.passamaquoddy.com/

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group