Indians.....
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,904
Likes: 93
From: Big Box suburb, IL
Continuing the discussion from the P.C. standpoint:
How should I be described?
Am I Indian-American? I say no. I was born in America. I pledge an allegiance to the U.S. flag. I pay U.S. taxes. My vote is administered to U.S. public officials.
Am I American-Indian? If I had to be described to someone more descriptly, this would fit. Normally, my answer is just "American". But if they wanted some more background knowledge, heritage, this fits. This fits because I am an American first. Classifying me as an "Indian-American" makes me look less American...as seen through the eyes of many Confederate Flag toting Caucasian-Americans (or is it American-Caucasion, American-Caucasoid, etc.). It also makes me feel less American. So American-Indian would be my choice.
What happens now? If Americans with Indian heritage (you know, Indians from India) now refer to themselves as American-Indians, what are the Aborigines-American supposed to call themselves? Well if we call them Americans, that makes real Americans feel less Americans (you know, the white people). We can't have that, now can we. Let's just call them savages, indigens, or since they are brown as well, let's just call them Indians. You know, they all look the same anyway.
Why can't every citizen just be classified as an American in this society?
How should I be described?
Am I Indian-American? I say no. I was born in America. I pledge an allegiance to the U.S. flag. I pay U.S. taxes. My vote is administered to U.S. public officials.
Am I American-Indian? If I had to be described to someone more descriptly, this would fit. Normally, my answer is just "American". But if they wanted some more background knowledge, heritage, this fits. This fits because I am an American first. Classifying me as an "Indian-American" makes me look less American...as seen through the eyes of many Confederate Flag toting Caucasian-Americans (or is it American-Caucasion, American-Caucasoid, etc.). It also makes me feel less American. So American-Indian would be my choice.
What happens now? If Americans with Indian heritage (you know, Indians from India) now refer to themselves as American-Indians, what are the Aborigines-American supposed to call themselves? Well if we call them Americans, that makes real Americans feel less Americans (you know, the white people). We can't have that, now can we. Let's just call them savages, indigens, or since they are brown as well, let's just call them Indians. You know, they all look the same anyway.
Why can't every citizen just be classified as an American in this society?
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,904
Likes: 93
From: Big Box suburb, IL
BTW ninethreeeleveven....I've never hear or know for Indians (you know, the ones from India) to be referred to as being apart of the Middle-East.
Is this another discussion? I've always thought of Indians as being more apart of the "sub-continent of Asia), therefore equating us as either Asians, or even refering to Indians as caucasion (due to geneology). However, never have I ever marked the "Middle Eastern" box in census, or other tests, or applications.
Is this another discussion? I've always thought of Indians as being more apart of the "sub-continent of Asia), therefore equating us as either Asians, or even refering to Indians as caucasion (due to geneology). However, never have I ever marked the "Middle Eastern" box in census, or other tests, or applications.
Former Moderator
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 17,122
Likes: 629
From: Houston/Durango
I guess it doesn't have to be all or nothing. We can all be classified as Americans AND maintain an ethnic identity if that makes us happy. Diversity is either good or bad depending on our perspective.
One strange fact about the names of American tribes is that most of them derive - not from what they called themselves -- but the (sometimes derogatory) names that their neighbors or enemies referred to them as.
One strange fact about the names of American tribes is that most of them derive - not from what they called themselves -- but the (sometimes derogatory) names that their neighbors or enemies referred to them as.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,736
Likes: 0
From: DC
There is some evidence that Hinduism in some form existed around 1500 BC but there wasnt anything written down ie. Hinduism literature until about 1000 BC. So it seems until 1000 BC it was just all talk!
1st 5 books of the bible came about 1400 bc btw.
chinese civilization is the oldest living culture. chinese written text started 4500 years ago. those that read modern chinese can go to a museum and read chinese text thousands of years old and still make sense of much of the content. Near complete homo sapien skulls have been found in china dated 300k-500k years old.
1st 5 books of the bible came about 1400 bc btw.
chinese civilization is the oldest living culture. chinese written text started 4500 years ago. those that read modern chinese can go to a museum and read chinese text thousands of years old and still make sense of much of the content. Near complete homo sapien skulls have been found in china dated 300k-500k years old.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,637
Likes: 0
From: Denver
It seems to me these indigenous tribal cultural groups labeled themselves long before the Europeans decided to classify them.
Would it not be appropriate to refer to them by their tribal names, such as Lakota, Mohawk and so on?
Would it not be appropriate to refer to them by their tribal names, such as Lakota, Mohawk and so on?