Comments on: Native Americans Actually Do Exist

By: slavdude

slavdude — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 21:48:34 +0000

In reply to Athaic. It's my understanding that they are fine with being called Indians.

By: Tyvor Winn

Tyvor Winn — Thu, 26 Jul 2018 18:27:39 +0000

In states that do not allow casino gambling, and in some that do, such as Louisiana, the existence and popularity of Indian casinos does not allow the reality of Indians to be doubted. (I suppose that reality might suggest to those prone to stereotyping that all Indians are rich. Ya’know, like Jews are supposed to be.)

BTW I have some acquaintance with Western New York state and Thomas Perry wrote a series of novels which include local color and which feature a native WNY Indian woman named Jane Whitefield who helps people in trouble with the mob and other villains disappear.

By: L.Long

L.Long — Thu, 26 Jul 2018 10:27:57 +0000

I use AmerIndian for this. Native American is confusing cuz I am a Native American too, and just like the AmerIndians my ancestors came from somewhere else. To talk about AmerIndians is sorta tough as they consider themselves not AmerIndians nor ‘Native Americans’ but Charekee(spelling), Sioux, Apache, etc.
After a number of years being with AmerIndians, their history is easy to tell…they were people and as such were not perfect. The USA were (and still is-see pipeline) a pack of criminal, bigoted aholes that killed as many as possible, as often as possible for their personal gain; and the whites of USA are still doing so (& to other non-whites & poor-whites) when they can!

By: Athaic

Athaic — Thu, 26 Jul 2018 08:45:36 +0000

Recently, a host […] who is Indian (as in from the Indian subcontinent, in Asia) took to referring to himself and his compatriots as “real Indians,”

It IS a real problem of nomenclature, Columbus (or his contemporaries) did wrongly assign a name on people and a continent who had nothing to do with “real” Indians, as the denomination was used then and is still used now.
This is a case where splitting semantics is warranted.

I found that reference deeply offensive and I’m neither Asian-Indian or American Indian. Its just that Native Americans […]

I had a colleague from India who was offended in the other direction: on some administrative paperwork, he had to put his race and didn’t like one bit to have to design himself as an “East Indian”.
I don’t think Quebecois and people from France would like it either if an American bureaucrat (i.e. someone outside of their community) started to insist that they refer themselves as “West French” and “East French”, respectively. And at least in this case both our people are connected, culturally and in relatively recent history, so wanting to use the same denomination has some basis in reality. That’s not the case for Native Americans/Indians.
Well, “West Indians” and “East Indians” are connected, too, but you have to go back to the time the ancestors of the future Native Americans crossed the Bering Strait.

I guess the guy on the podcast was not saying that Native Americans/Indigenous people/First Nations don’t exist. Just that “Indian” should solely design people from India.
Look, Greg. In your sentence I quoted just above, you had to use qualifiers whenever you use “Indian”, and generally you use “Native Americans” to avoid confusion. It seems to me all of us could drop the term “American Indian” and go for a nomenclature without a build-in confusing factor. Especially now that people from India are more and more present in North America.

Maybe it would be simpler to ask Native Americans how they want to be called.