Just Wondering…
by Latoya Peterson
I was over on Newspaper Rock where Rob linked back to our Diversity Inc article, noting:
Yes, these arguments sure do sound familiar to me. I hear them all the time from anti-Indian pundits and correspondents.
Which kind of shocked me.
I mean, if someone is going to make this argument:
“Nobody is forcing anyone to stay in America, you are free to leave whenever you please (and that is for every race), and, nobody took YOU personally from Africa or Asia or Spain or Italy or from anywhere else.”
Where do they expect the Native Americans to go?
What do racists say in that situation?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
MJN wrote:
I attended a lecture by Sherman Alexie once, and he talked about this problem. Some middle-aged white man yelled out of a truck window as he was driving past that Alexie “should go back where he came from.” Alexie said he was laughing too hard to yell back “you first.”
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 10:49 am ¶
Sanguinity wrote:
Um… Are you assuming that what racists say in that situation make sense? That it even approaches an internally coherent argument?
‘Cause just because it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever to say it to Native people, doesn’t mean that racists don’t.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 10:53 am ¶
Jeffrey Landale wrote:
“Go back to India!”
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 11:01 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Sanguinity -
No, I actually just wanted to laugh. Maybe add it to the racists “hall of shame” quotes post.
I really want to hear the comeback on that one.
What could they possibly say?
“I thought we took care of this with the smallpox blankets?”
“America didn’t start until we got here?”
Or maybe they just use my favorite,
“Aren’t you happy that white people civilized you?” (We black folk get that one quite often in discussions of slavery.)
But I still think that a couple of the less dyed- in-the-wool racists would be tripped up a bit by a Native American asking them where they should go.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 11:02 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@ Jeffrey - Yes! Two points!
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 11:03 am ¶
Sanguinity wrote:
But more seriously, I’ve seen anti-immigration “nativists” in Europe appropriate Native imagery for themselves to “justify” their anti-immigration stance. I.e., they recast themselves as Curtis’ noble, tragic, romantic “vanishing race,” complete with feathered headdresses and all. Which, coming from Europeans — the very folk who engineered the Conquest and genocide — is like a kick in the stomach to me.
I haven’t seen EuroAmerican “nativists” do it yet, but I strongly suspect that’s a lack of me looking, and not a lack of them doing. Because when you think about “nativist” self-imagery — American flags and “Western” tokens, including cowboy hats and turquoise bolo ties — the cigar-store Indian eagle feathers would fit in there just fine.
Let’s just say I’m waiting.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 11:13 am ¶
Zora wrote:
Oho. Teaching Native American studies classes I’ve heard just about every kind of racist statement about Indians, including some along these lines. (Sometimes the statements are intentionally racist but, more often than not, they’re racist by way of school-system-promoted ignorance - which means I actually have a good chance of convincing the students otherwise over the course of the semester.) Sometimes it’s “They have their reservations, why don’t they stay there,” but sometimes it’s variations along the lines of “They lost their land fair and square [ha!] so if they don’t like it they can leave.” I haven’t heard a clear articulation of where Native people should then go, but really, expecting “clear articulation” from all the misinformation my students come in with is probably expecting too much. (Invariably, some are surprised there are Indians alive today at all. This often goes hand in hand with the assertion that any Indigenous people around today aren’t “really” Indigenous because they don’t look the way they looked in Curtis’s [staged] photos. If you’re not wearing feathers, how could you possibly be Indian?)
@Sanguinity: I know of a Native guy who attended a German pow-wow hosted by German “hobby Indians,” and because he was wearing jeans and a t-shirt, they kicked him out for being inauthentic. Only Native guy there, and he’s not authentic enough…
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 11:37 am ¶
Tom wrote:
I’ve heard the Bering Straits “argument” that Native Americans are actually Asians.
I’m not kidding.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 11:38 am ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
As usual, thanks for linking to my site.
I often tell naysayers that if they don’t like Native activism, they can go back where they came from.
But you asked how Natives respond when told to “go back.” I checked my site and found three instances of this. There weren’t any great comebacks, but here’s what happened:
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/und.htm
Currently, I am a doctoral student in educational leadership at UND, a mother and grandmother and have been involved in the anti-logo movement since the 1970s. Still, it was with trepidation that I walked to the anti-logo vigil on the corner of Sixth Avenue North and Columbia Road on March 25.
Standing silently with a small group of students, the first comment I heard yelled from a passing vehicle was, “Go back to where you came from!” This comment was followed by yells of “F• you! Go back to your tipi! Drink firewater! If the logo goes so do your programs! You should be proud! I have an Indian friend and he likes the logo!”
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/stype036.htm
Then he looked at me and said:
“Why the hell don’t you people get back on that damn boat, the Cauliflower, and go back to where you came from?”
This is not a joke, this is what I was told.
Well, wrong thing to say to me.
Without not wanting to break a leg or two, I got real into his face.
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/terror.htm
If you don’t think there’s a connection between hating terrorists, Arabs, foreigners, minorities, and Native Americans, consider:
* Near San Diego, someone called a Choctaw woman a “faggot Arab” after the attack.
* Native American author Sherman Alexie heard the first, “Go back to your own country!” shouted in his direction from a car adorned with an American flag in Spokane.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 11:39 am ¶
macon d wrote:
Yeah, those German Indians are a mess. There’s a good photo gallery about them here, art-shots by Andrea Robbins and Max Becher.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 11:41 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
Rob,
Good points about the links between the racist’s hatred of various people’s and how there is no end to the stupidity.
I remember right after 9/11 a Sikh was shot and killed. It would seem they couldnt tell the difference. Dark skin and something on their head, must be an Arab and Muslim right? Never mind the difference in race and the fact that the Islamic and Sikh religion have a long history of animosity.
On the other hand, many Americans used 9/11 as a tool to learn more about different peoples. My wife, an Arab, was attending Uni. at that time and had many people offer to walk her to her car to protect her from possible retaliation.
The German “Indians” are interesting, to say the least. Reminds me of the Israeli Neo-Nazis in the paper recently, a black lady I knew when I was growing up who was more white power than David Duke, or the Nazi themed bars and clubs that dot the Asian world. Amazing.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 11:51 am ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
I like Alexie’s “You first.” Or he could take one step to the side, stand with his arms folded, and say, “Okay, now you.”
I’ll have to see if I can think of a good comeback.
Then there are related comments such as “Love it or leave it.” Again they perversely assume that Indians have somewhere to go. And again I say it more often to naysayers than they say it to Indians. For example: “If you don’t like the Constitution’s confirmation of tribal sovereignty, go start your own country.”
Of course, there’s also my fictional response to the issue. It isn’t quite what you asked for either, but it may be of interest.
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/usvsthem.htm
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 11:58 am ¶
Zora wrote:
As far as parallels b/w Native people and Arabs, one of the most striking parallels is their roles in movies - up until at least the late 1960s and into the 70s, the bad guys are usually Indians - I’m sorry, that’s “Injuns” - and they’re represented as foreign, savage, primitive, opposed to “modern society,” ruled by emotion, sometimes creepily sexual, and almost exclusively male. (Indian women, should they exist, are exotic, suppressed/ oppressed by their own culture (from which a white man might be able to save them), often half white or at least much paler than the men, invariably in love with a white guy, and definitely doomed.) It’s pretty damn similar to the way that Arabs have been portrayed in films since about the early to mid 1990s - savage, primitive, ruled by emotions, and completely opposed to “modern society.” While it’s not an exact 1:1 substitution, there are so many parallels that I’d say in film, at least, in many ways Arabs just filled that same pre-existing space of “enemy” that Indians used to occupy.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 12:09 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
Well, even me as a white guy has gotten the “love it or leave it” thing thrown at them. That is the last resort for these types!
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 12:12 pm ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
Those German Indians fascinate me too. I’m always trying to figure out what’s going through their minds.
In particular, I’m wondering if they can be racist if they adopt another people’s identity to honor them. I’m thinking…yes. I think I can spin this to be anti-Indian rather than pro-Indian.
Here’s my latest take on the question. I think it’s pretty good. Let me know what you think:
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2008/06/why-we-love-custer-and-indians.html
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 12:23 pm ¶
Nicole wrote:
Yeah, I do wonder what racists would say in regards to Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians. Ugh!
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 12:43 pm ¶
Renee wrote:
@Zora not only are they portrayed that way bodies are often interchangeable. They don’t care that an actual native plays the role of a native just as long as they are dark skinned. Therefore any race or culture can represent anyone…
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 1:09 pm ¶
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:
I’m Indian (South Asian) and I always feel weird whenever people refer to Native Americans as “Indians.”
So I;’m wondering how THEY feel about being called “Indian” even though they aren’t from India, they’re AMERICAN.
I don’t want to piss off anybody here, but I always get offended when people refer to them as Indians….because they aren’t.
So in a way, Jeffrey’s joke makes a lot of sense to me: “go back to India!!”
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 2:25 pm ¶
Ali wrote:
@MJN - The Sherman Alexie anecdote is hilarious!
I feel that a lot of racists (racism participants) have a habit of over looking First Nations peoples. Like when people are surprised when they meet an Indian or feel that the “few” who still exist have completely lost their culture. Chris Rock used to have a joke where he said no group had it as bad as the Native Americans. He asked the audience “when was the last time you saw a Native American family just chillin’ at Red Lobster.” I wanted to jump into the tv and scream at him, “all the time if you live in North Dakota!”
It bothers me that this kind of dismissive/racist attitude enters so many class rooms on a regular basis as well. They still have that bullshit assignment teachers like to give students where you “trace your family history.” Of course what they’re expecting to hear is a “rags to riches” immigration story.
Not to derail the thread but I am completely dumb founded by “hobby indians.” I had never even heard of this before. They consider themselves more Indian than actual Indians! WTF? They’re like the Black Hebrews of Germany! I don’t think I can ever understand the mind frame of white people who dress up as other ethnicities for fun or to reconnect to their so-called roots. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe we should threaten to bring Cakewalk’s back and see how they like.
OMG! I just googled Cakewalk to double check my spelling and there is a music recording program with that name! What is the world coming to!!!
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 2:54 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>So I;’m wondering how THEY feel about being called “Indian” even though they aren’t from India, they’re AMERICAN.
Rob could say more on this than I could, I’m sure, but there is no real consensus among the Native communities in the US.
It seems that Canadians of native descent are going back to the term “Aboriginal,” or at least that’s what I’m reading. In the US, I’ve heard/read Native Peoples, First Nations, Native Americans, First Americans, Native American Indian, American Indian, and Indian. And Aboriginal.
>but I always get offended when people refer to them as Indians….because they aren’t.
I’m not sure what’s so offensive, other than it being not factually accurate…
If you want to be offended by anyone, blame Columbus for being small-minded enough to assume that he had hit “The Indies” despite that it didn’t match any of the known information about the actual islands referred to as the Indies. To this day, the Carribbean islands can be referred to as the West Indies, and the people sometimes refer to themselves collectively as West Indian.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 3:01 pm ¶
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:
“If you want to be offended by anyone, blame Columbus for being small-minded enough to assume that he had hit “The Indies” despite that it didn’t match any of the known information about the actual islands referred to as the Indies.”
LOL sooo true. What kind of morons back in those days didnt know that India had thriving royal empires back in the old days?
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 3:06 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
I just looked at the German Indians. I just don’t get it.
Thanks for those links Rob. Damn.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 3:22 pm ¶
juju wrote:
On the “hobby indians” check out “Playing Indian” by Philip J. Deloria; it has a long history.
http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Indian-Yale-Historical-Publications/dp/0300080670
I appreciate so much of what I’m reading here. Thanks Latoya for starting the discussion.
Pigging back off of Zoe’s statement:
” (Invariably, some are surprised there are Indians alive today at all. This often goes hand in hand with the assertion that any Indigenous people around today aren’t “really” Indigenous because they don’t look the way they looked in Curtis’s [staged] photos. If you’re not wearing feathers, how could you possibly be Indian?)”
I have also heard people invoke their long, long lost “maybe Cherokee or something, maybe” ancestor in order to stake their authentic and exclusive claim to the land. These are some of the very same people who are oblivious to living breathing communities of indigenous peoples. For example, I remember hearing the pairing of these two sentiments in the challenging of the “Indian-ness” of Pequot people in relation to Foxwoods casino.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 3:51 pm ¶
Vodalus wrote:
Ali,
I grew up in the South and a staple of church festivals is indeed The Cakewalk. People volunteer to bake cakes and then attendees walk along a series of numbers while music plays. When the music stops, a number is drawn and the person standing there wins a cake. As you can see, it’s rather divorced from the original context and is regarded as simply a distant cousin of Bingo.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 4:15 pm ¶
waxghost wrote:
Deaf Feminist Punk, it really depends on who you are talking to. I have a good friend who uses “Indian” so consistently that I finally just stopped saying “Native American” around him and he didn’t care; he is half-Native, half-white but seems to identify most with his Native American side. I used to know another guy who insisted that he was Lakota, not Native American or Indian. I also attended a lecture once where the guy said that he believed “Indian” came from “indios”, which supposedly meant “angels” in Spanish (I say supposedly because I don’t know whether this is true or not.) And it hasn’t come up at all with several other Native Americans I know, but “Native American” actually seems to work best.
Ali (#19), I think the mindset of those kinds of white people is the same as those who cry reverse racism and that sort of thing: they want to make themselves out to be the victim so they can try to claim even of the power that they don’t acknowledge they have. At least, that’s what was going on when my snow-white father decided to take old (unlikely) family rumors of a part-Native great-grandmother and pretend that it was the truth.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 4:30 pm ¶
juju wrote:
“I’ve heard the Bering Straits “argument” that Native Americans are actually Asians.
I’m not kidding.”
This makes me think of some of what I have heard in relation to Kennebeck Man. Since “it has been proven that he is European”, the American continents rightly belong to white folks. Makes perfect sense, right?
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 4:56 pm ¶
Ayo wrote:
Actually, I was handpicked from Asia to come over here. It’s called adoption.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 5:12 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
re comment #8
Canada’s current PM has a very close advisor named Tom Flanagan who has been trying to popularize the ‘Bering straight immigrants’ theory for years…
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 5:42 pm ¶
Zora wrote:
The best estimate I’ve seen is that 15,000 Germans get together on weekends and in the summer to “play Indian.” It was a tradition in both East and West Germany (as well as in reunified Germany).
@Rob Schmidt, from what I’ve seen, I’d say you’re right in saying they can be racist by doing this! “Playing Indian” that way is, as best I can tell, all about romanticizing a pre-industrial, primitive way of life — and thus relies on utterly reductive stereotypes about past Indians, and also erases the existence and cultures of Native people today. (Who are, of course, not “really” Indian, because they don’t keep up the traditions like the hobby Indians do.) It seems to me a variation on New Age appropriation, though a bit more thorough. Folks up at Sun Dances in the Dakotas have had problems with Germans who come and insist they should have access to ceremonies that are only for tribal members because they insist “I’m Sioux! You should let me in!” - which strikes me not only as weird but also colonialist. “I can claim anything that’s yours, including your identity! If I want it, it’s mine!” It’s just colonialism in buckskin.
OK, I’ll shut up now. I’m currently working on a paper on the German obsession with Indians so I have way too much to say about this!
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 5:50 pm ¶
Nick wrote:
Well, I’m white and I moved from Australia back to England, land of my ancestors (well, most of them).
So I guess I did go back to where I came from.
Not too bad, although the weather sucks.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 7:30 pm ¶
Jas wrote:
@DFP
I have to admit I get confused with it too. To me Native Americans are Native Americans and Indians are Indians (from India). I’m actually a bit confused trying to get through some of the comments hehe but I think a lot of people are quoting what they’ve heard themselves also.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 9:18 pm ¶
Misspelled wrote:
I’ve heard the Bering Straits “argument” that Native Americans are actually Asians.
I’m not kidding.
My favorite incarnation of this is from when Bill Donahue was interviewed on The Colbert Report:
“I’m a Native American, I was born in New York City, and those people came from Asia, so they’re not really Native Americans anyhow.”
…Riiight.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 9:54 pm ¶
Logan wrote:
Abu:
The German “Indians” are interesting, to say the least. Reminds me of the Israeli Neo-Nazis in the paper recently, a black lady I knew when I was growing up who was more white power than David Duke, or the Nazi themed bars and clubs that dot the Asian world. Amazing.
Not to derail this comment (and I’d post in italics so it was clearer I was quoting you and such), and not to really get into Nazi politics, but there was never any real hatred by the initial Nazi party of any Asian culture. The Germans made an alliance with the Japanese due to similar ideas (that and Japan bring itself up to Little Brown Brother status, so to speak). Hell, a Nazi, John Rabe, was responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of Chinese during the Nanking Massacre, perpetrated by the then German ally in the Japanese, and was known as a hero in Nanking for his efforts. Nazi-Germany under Hitler had decent connections with countries in Asia, so it actually makes sense that they would be more accepting of Nazi bars and such than in America or Europe.
Additionally, as I’ve now fallen completly off the rail, Hitler actually had respect for pure-blooded Africans. There were many instances where he would write vouchers for pure-blooded Africans living in Germany so that they could get jobs if they needed them. I’d go as far to say that Hitler treated pure-blooded Africans better than the US has ever treated African-Americans in its history. Of course, African-Americans in the US were tainted and subject to extermination, but there was a respect and a view of pure-blood of African Africans. And I’ll apologize if this ends up coming as a praise Hitler or Hitler apologist tone, which isn’t my intention, rather to further illustrate faults in perception and our government.
Back to the topic at hand: I think that with Native Americans, it’d probably be something like go back to your reservation where we let you have Casinos, keeping the tone of superiority, as we’re gracious enough to let you stay on your land and have stuff we don’t have, and how dare you act like you’re equal and such.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 10:30 pm ¶
carmelia wrote:
@waxghost: The Spanish word for “angel” is “angel”. Perhaps you’ve heard of the city of “Los Angeles”?
I’ve always been troubled by the nomenclature used to describe so-called native americans. Indians is obviously a colonial misconception and categorically wrong, and “native american” is incredibly vague and only works for native/first nations people from america. What about Canadians? Or native people from Latin America? You can tell I have not met many native people. But the ones I have met identify with their particular tribe or ethnic group. Why must we use one catch-all term to describe them? it’s a bit strange to talk about a group that is not my own and with which I have very little familiarity, true, but I have a lot of questions. If any of you guys here are native american, do you ever get the “where are you from?” question? I guess I am coming from a place of unfamiliarity and outsider-ness (is that a word?), I hope I am not coming through as offensive.
Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 11:05 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
@DFP:
I’m Indian(parents from India) too and it bugs me that Indian means NA to most people. I grew up with kids calling me Land O’ Lakes and Pocahontas all the time because they didn’t make a distinction. Last time I got called Pocahontas was when I was 21 and wore my long hair in two braids. I was so upset when I went home I cut it into a short bob.
I refer to people as Cherokee or Lumbee or whatever they actually are. I think First Nations is an apt term I’d like to see the U.S. adopt because it’s the only one I know of that acknowledges that there were nations here first and they weren’t all one group.
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 1:52 am ¶
kanani wrote:
There is no answer to this because what they’re really expressing is an incomplete thought:
“Go back to where you came from!”
What they’re leaving out is this:
“so I don’t have to deal with you because having you around forces me to think more than I’m able.”
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 2:09 am ¶
Kap wrote:
I like when people say “If you’re going to live in America, why don’t you learn the language?!” I suppose they mean the language of…England? By order of the queen!
But really, if you want to learn the language of America: just choose from one of the over 700 Native dialects. Seems quite simple. One has options.
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 3:40 am ¶
lxy wrote:
I think there is a funny saying among Latinos in the Southwest concerning so-called illegal immigrants from Mexico:
“We didn’t cross the border. The border crossed us!”
The point being that all the land from Texas to California was originally part of Mexico and was stolen by the USA during the Mexican-American War.
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 6:37 am ¶
Katie wrote:
Kap -
Referring to Native languages as “languages” is preferable to “dialects,” which demeans them.
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 7:08 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>native american” is incredibly vague and only works for native/first nations people from america. What about Canadians? Or native people from Latin America?
Um, despite the US’s common use of “American” to mean “USA,” (it’s a horrible self-centered shorthand ((just because we have “America” in the name doesn’t mean we should use it exclusively)), and I’m as guilty of it as the next… well… “American”), geographically, “American” DOES mean the continents of North America (including Central America) and South America. Native American can mean indigenous peoples from anywhere on or associated with those continents.
I will generally call anyone by whatever they feel comfortable with - everyone should be able to self-identify. I also know some people of native background who ID with their tribal affiliation.
However, there does need to be a catch-all term for people of native indigenous descent - both due to geography and history (many native peoples are now of mixed descent, and reservations were often created and populated with no regard to where tribes actually originated). With so much diversity, I don’t expect one uniform term to ever be used, but I would hope that the native communities (plural) would be the ones to say in which terms suit them best.
You can tell I have not met many native people. But the ones I have met identify with their particular tribe or ethnic group. Why must we use one catch-all term to describe them?
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 7:53 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Sorry - that last paragraph should have been up earlier and marked with a “>”, as a quote from Carmelia’s comment.
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 7:57 am ¶
kakodaimon wrote:
A lot of my undergrad was spent in the Aboriginal Studies department, and the biggest response I heard to “But we were here first” [ie, cannot be told to simply “go home”] was to deny that Aboriginal people were, in fact, Aboriginal! After all, their blood has been so diluted, they have apparently lost their traditions, etc, etc, this sort of bullshit.
Interesting thing about the German hobbyists… I really don’t think there’s much good to say about them, but on the other hand the same cultural phenomenon responsible for them has sparked some interesting theory. I remember reading one German scholar who was well-respected by many in the Aboriginal academy - he compared the repression and denial of horror by Germans post-WWII to a parallel repression in North America post-colonial genocide (the 90+% of people who were wiped out on European contact). The word he used for this, for knowing but getting on with your life as if nothing happened, was Verdrängung. Note: he was not comparing the events themselves in any way, but rather how aggressor societies dealt with that aspect of their history / themselves.
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 8:16 am ¶
juju wrote:
@DFP
“So I;’m wondering how THEY feel about being called “Indian” even though they aren’t from India, they’re AMERICAN. ”
I personally prefer the name of my specific nation, or indigenous, and Native American is also fine. My family and most of my “Indian” friends prefer Indian or the names of their specific nations and/or clans. It’s really an individual thing. I tend to call East Indian people South Asian, which is how some Pakistani, Indian and Sri Lankan people I have known refer to themselves.
@Logan
Check out “Hitler’s Black Victims: The Historical Experience of Afro-Germans, European Blacks, Africans and African Americans in the Nazi Era” by Clarence Lusane; it paints a very different, and more complex picture.
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Black-Victims-Historical-Afro-Germans/dp/0415932955
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 9:08 am ¶
Ali wrote:
@Vodalus - OMG they still do that shit! I too originally hail from the south. We left GA when I was like 10 and I remember having a cakewalk at the Catholic school I used to attend. Holy crap I thought that died out with 80s. Apparently I need to reconnect with my roots…?
@waxghost - I definitely agree with your point on the “white victim” mentality. If I had a dime for every white midwesterner who’s eyes lit up with joy as they told me about their Cherokee grandmother I could retire to Malibu.
@Ayo - Your comment made me laugh out loud (at work)! Now everyone around me thinks I’m crazy.
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 10:01 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
@DFP,
We have had this discussion here about American Indians and self labeling. Most of the “First Nations” (another label) people I know refer to themselves as “American Indian”.
The term “Indian” in a historical context comes from the Spanish words “in dios” meaning “with God”. It was a term used by the original Spanish explorers of North and South America to refer to the native peoples.
So when one talks about “American Indians” it doesnt have anything to do with India. Besides, I dont know Hindi, but is “India” actually the word for the country in the national language or is it something else?
Many times Western nations, especially English speaking countries, changed the names of countries they dealt with to make it easier to understand and pronounce.
Even knowning that, why feel offended? As a person of German heritage, I am not offended that I am called “German” rather than refering to me in the proper “Deutsch”. I am not offended that the “Pennsylvania Dutch” are called that even though it is a bastardisation of “Deutsch” and they are of German background rather than Dutch background.
The word “German” itself, in a contemporary politically correct sense, would be offensive as it is the name given to the people by their Roman, Latin speaking conquers and occupiers.
When I lived in the UK Indians, Pakistanis, Bengalis were all called “South Asians” or just Asians.
I looked up “India” and it would seem that the term “Indian” is not an original word use in the Hindi language itself. भारत Bhārat is the word used in the country, so it would seem that American Indians “in dios” might have a more historically correct claim to the label.
Either way, I dont see the need to be offended when a person from भारत Bhārat hears the term “Indian” when labeling an American Indian.
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 10:55 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
For what it’s worth, I have not yet received a complaint about how we categorize Native American/American Indian issues here. Everyone seems to identify differently, so our policy is to allow everyone to identify as they see fit.
Most US based Native Americans use the terms “indian” “american indian” “native american” and “indigenous” - I never heard “First Nations” or “Aboriginal” until more people from outside the US started comments.
My own personal policy is to identify people as they state. (this can occasionally lead to complications, but generally works pretty well.)
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 11:04 am ¶
Vodalus wrote:
er, isn’t the Espanol for “with” con?
“without” is sin
“in” is en
Referring to pagan nations as being “with God” simply does not sound particularly Medieval Spanish to me. Can we get a link here to some evidence?
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 11:19 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
@ Vodalus,
Obviously my Spanish isnt too good.
Columbus described them as “Una gente in Dios.” A people in God.
Here is the Wiki entry on the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversy
Russell Means founder of the progressive “American Indian Movement” AIM said:
“I abhor the term Native American…I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins.”[
Last, but not least, in memory of George Carlin, here is his take on it:
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/1521/carlin_pclanguage3.html
The term “First Nations” is one that is used here in the USA.
http://www.firstnations.org/
It is an organisation dedicated returning natural assets to American Indian control.
Anyway, it seems clear that there are a multitide of different ways that American Indians self label, not to mention the way they are label by others.
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 12:18 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mgenteindios.html
The ” in Dios” = “in God” is bogus. See above link.
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 12:23 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
@Abu:
Are you serious, telling an Indian they have no need to be offended? Because you’re from Germany and you’re not offended by the Pennsylvania Dutch?
Bharat is the name used when people speak Hindi, yes. When Indians speak other Indian languages they use the other names. Indians speaking English always say India, which comes from the holy Indus River(named for the god Indra) and surrounding valley.
I am Indian(not East Indian) and South Asian, but calling me only South Asian is as incomplete as if people wanted to call a person from Germany European. Still it’s not really comparable because Germans and German Americans are not a misunderstood minority.
In the U.S. we are not called Asian. People have gotten confused when I’ve referred to myself as such; when I’ve explained that India is in Asia they’ve insisted still that Asian means Chinese or Japanese and I’m just Indian. Elementary teachers told me to check the “Other” not the “Asian” box on standardized tests.
I respect the right of others to choose their name. If anyone had ever told me to call them Indian or American Indian instead of Lumbee, I would. But I also have a right to name myself and to not like how “Indian” has caused confusion for myself and other people about my identity for my whole life.
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 1:18 pm ¶
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:
everyone’s input about the East Indian vs American Indian debate is very interesting and I’ve learned a few new things as well.
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 1:44 pm ¶
Kap wrote:
Re: #39 @Katie
I see your point. I was mainly just trying to make my prose more interesting by using a synonym to the word “language.” (since I’d used the word “language” earlier in the post) –So I failed at prose. But you’re right, “language” and “dialect” are two different things. And I suck at life.
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 5:21 pm ¶
dmarks wrote:
“East Indian” is not a good term for those from India. “East Indian” implies the East Indies islands, just as “West Indian” means the Caribbean area islands.
I actually use the term “India Indian” for them, when I have to distinguish them. I don’t see how anyone from India could complain about that? But I am open to hearing it if that is the case.
“South Asia” is not the best term. Thais and Israelis and Saudis are also from southern Asia.
Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 10:13 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
@Marge,
You write:
“Still it’s not really comparable because Germans and German Americans are not a misunderstood minority.”
Not exacly true. I guess your knowledge of the German diaspora might be limited, but there are “misundertsood” ethnic German enclaves all over Eastern Europe, Africa and South and Central America.
The problem has been so acute in Eastern Europe that Germany actually passed laws to allow for the repatriation and citizenship for this mistreated and oppressed German minorities.
Yep, us people of European extract can, and are, misunderstood minorities in places as well.
@Lyonside,
Some say it is bogus some dont. That is history for you. It is interesting to note that some of the people pushing the bogus theory are representitives of the far right in the USA. Agenda in play? It’s possible.
Posted 04 Jul 2008 at 1:05 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
Re: German “Hobby Indians”
There’s a long tradition of this in US America as well. Phillip Deloria wrote a great book called “Playing Indian” about it. Even if you aren’t invested in native issues it is fascinating to read because the fetishism (which is in effect for lots of other poc, as we have discussed on other threads) is so extreme in the native case that it does not even require the presence–or continued existence–of actual native people. I always think of that book whenever I read about any kind of racial/ethnic fetishism…
Posted 04 Jul 2008 at 12:03 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
@Abu
I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear; I was commenting on the status of Germans in America. My point still stands though.
Posted 04 Jul 2008 at 2:25 pm ¶
waxghost wrote:
Abu, by “Germans and German Americans”, I understood Marge to mean just Germans and German Americans, not Germans all over the world. I’m sure we could talk about, say, German Russians as a mistreated minority but we’re not. Making your argument a red herring.
Posted 04 Jul 2008 at 2:41 pm ¶
The Local Crank wrote:
“Indian” vs “Native American” is also somewhat generational, with elders tending to prefer Indian on the theory that if Columbus can’t get his directions straight it’s not our problem. The best advice I can offer to well-meaning yonegv (white people) is to refer to Indians by tribe, since that’s how we generally identify ourselves, the same way you would refer to a German as a “German” not (necessarily) a “white man” or a “European”. You would call me Cherokee or a Cherokee Indian; someone else might be Lakota (NOT Sioux) or Navajo (you can’t pronounce Dine so it’s best not to try) or Choctaw, etc.
Posted 04 Jul 2008 at 3:02 pm ¶
The Local Crank wrote:
Oh, one other thing. Our ancestors most certainly did not come over from Asia on any fictional ice-free corridor. We were created here, by the Creator, in the land He created for us.
Posted 04 Jul 2008 at 3:03 pm ¶
Korolev wrote:
To LocalCrank: Look, I’m sorry, this is going to sound insensitive….
But human beings did not originate from America. They originated from Africa. The migrated from Africa, to Europe/Middle East, to Asia and then to the US. That’s what science says.
Different ethnic groups did not originate independently - as human beings spread, populations became separated, and gene-exchange stopped. This caused genetic drift. Human populations began to differ in appearance - a minor change caused by a lack of allele-exchange. If human populations in the Americas, Europe and Asia had remained isolated for billions of years, they would have split off into different species. But they didn’t - human beings are still part of the same species.
Native Americans were not created separately from human beings. They are part of the same species as us. On a genetic/biological level, they are the same as us, and they can create viable, fertile offspring with any other ethnic group. This is the biological definition of a species.
Native Americans did not magically spring out of the ground in the Americas - they migrated over there. All the evidence shows that the earliest human remains are in Africa, and that we evolved in Africa, and the spread out.
There is no way that humans evolved twice in different parts of the world. The odds of that happening are too small to even contemplate. Native Americans immigrated to the Americas. They were the first humans to go there, but they were “created” there. That’s completely unscientific.
We have one place of origin (africa), we have one common genetic template, and we are ONE species. Anything else is causes division, and division sows the seeds of racism.
Posted 05 Jul 2008 at 7:28 am ¶
Korolev wrote:
All I’m trying to say is this: Native Americans were not created separately from any other group. Like every other ethnic group, their origins ultimately lie in Africa. Almost all geneticists, anthropologists and scientists agree with this - humanity could not have evolved twice (again, the chances of that happening are so slim they might as well be zero). Because Native Americans are human beings, they MUST share the same origin has all other human beings. There is no other logical conclusion.
Posted 05 Jul 2008 at 7:31 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Korolev (#60)
Thanks for treading that difficult ground (on Fourth of July Weekend yet!) firmly but sensitively. I understand where Local Crank is coming from and I’m not trying to denigrate his beliefs but…a phrase like “We were created here, by the Creator, in the land He created for us” raises all sorts of alarm bells for this here A-rab. Just to be clear, I’m not saying that acknowledging an ancient, common African origin justifies screwing native people out of their homes. And of course I understand that the “My God/People/Land” narrative has a different weight when spoken by a Cherokee blogger than, say, the Israeli Defense Forces, but still…the underlying sentiment is the same. And I can’t show up for that–for all of the reasons you’ve said.
Posted 05 Jul 2008 at 2:15 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
“I’ve heard the Bering Straits “argument” that Native Americans are actually Asians.
I’m not kidding.”
This makes me think of some of what I have heard in relation to Kennebeck Man. Since “it has been proven that he is European”, the American continents rightly belong to white folks. Makes perfect sense, right?
juju~ I’ve always wondered about those Discovery type shows. I watched one the other day about “caucasians” in stone age China. The theme seems to be white supremacy, in that they were there first and they invented whatever gadget (wheel) revolutionized the respective society.
Also, thanks for posting that link. I was getting concerned…
Posted 07 Jul 2008 at 11:43 am ¶