|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
I was involved in a discussion with a friend which eventually turned upon a point of 'labels' or labelling. (Akin to my 'Gandhi' discussion in this forum, but not exactly so.)
In order to investigate this phenomenon, I wondered if the gathered ayleurs here (and members of this forum who sternly repudiate the notion that they could ever willingly be ayleurs) might answer a coupe of questions for me.
What I'm looking for is:
1. your reaction; and
2. your response
to a word that I give you.
To explain, if, for instance, the word I gave you was nigger, your reaction might be: "Yuk. Don't ever use that word." Your response might be: Well, I suppose technically it could be taken to mean an African-American, but it has such derogatory connotations that it is only ever acceptable in use when used by an African-American as part of African-American patois (as in hip-hop music and so on).
If the word I gave you was minute your reaction might be: "a moent, a short length of time". Your response might be: "Ah yes, it also means something really tiny. In any case, why is shanks linking this to a completely different thread?"
So there you go. I hope I've explained myself well enough. Begging your indulgence on this one, here's the word:
Indian
Thanks
the sunshine warrior
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 315
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 315 |
Both my reaction and my response have been:
Which kind of Indian are you talking about?
Ciao
Emanuela
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
My reaction: ambiguous-- how is this word being used? Is there really such a thing as an Indian? (Well, there are millions of citizens of the country India–I suppose I would call them Indian!)
My response: Well it could refer to an American Indian--or could be someone from the Indian sub-continent-- and even then its not a good word--I am not a European American-- i am Irish American--
Indian is too vague-- are they Pakistani? or Bengali? Hindu? Muslim? from Bangladeshi? (And while Pakistani's and Bangladeshi's might not consider themselves to be INDIAN– they are from the indian subcontinent– Like "american" which tend to refer to citizens of the US– but technically speaking– American can be anyone from the americas– both north and south!)
or are they North American Indian?-- Shoshone? Mohawk? what nation?
or South American-- i recognize name of some to some American groups-- but I can't name any....
Indian is such a vague a word–it's hard to react to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
Hi shanks,
Very sorry, but your distinction between "reaction" and "response" provoked a reaction in my mind, a bit like: what the heck is he up to? And the attendant response (in your sense "filtered through reason") would be: Yours is a leading question, leading to a feeling of manipulation. I mainly post this because yesterday I met an old retired colleague of mine, of Indian (i.e. India) origin.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,773 |
Indian
reaction: which one? or is the ambiguity the point?
response: used to describe large, noncohesive groups of people - persons whose ancestors come from the Indian subcontinent, and persons whose ancestors come from the Americas (well, sort of. MY ancestors come from North America, including the ones whose ancestors came from Germany, Ireland, France, Scotland ... shoot, if you go back far enough, we're all African.) None of the ancestors regarded themselves as part of a homogeneous group, but the term is convenient except for the unfortunate duplication due to Columbus being hopelessly lost. I wish there were different terms for the two groups, but the PC Native American is cumbersome. I don't know if there is a similar phrase used in India.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
"Indian"
Immediate reaction = (Red) Indian. Few Americans have had any contact with them except in books and movies. When we were kids, we may have played "Cowboys and Indians". The Indians always lost. We may have seen them at fairs and carnivals all dressed up in fake un-authentc costumes, but never had a chance to talk to them. A few of us may remember uncomfortably how they were systematically driven onto reservations, and even moved off them onto less desirable reservations when oil was discovered on the first reservation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
Reaction: Person from Indian subcontinent Response: Hmm, I realise the mental image my mind conjures, unbidden, is probably specifically a Hindu man (so betraying my cultural sterotype-programming of being both racist and sexist - ah, bloody language!)  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289 |
My reaction was the same as Bill's: Native American. Interestingly, those who are from Australasia fasten on the meaning of someone from the Indian subcontinent. Which just proves that your reactions are determined by your surroundings and experience, which we already knew. What's more to the point is what emotional reaction comes with it. In my case, "indian" i.e., native american, is something tinged with mystery, something somewhat exotic, since I have never personally known an American Indian and know nothing about them but what I have read in books, most of which make the Indians somewhat romantic figures. This in spite of the fact that I do know Indians (in the other sense) personally, and have no particular emotive reaction to that sense of the word. Indian indians are not exotic to me because I know some and they are real people to me like any others.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Sweet shanks, because it was you doing the asking, my reaction was: a person or thing from India. My response was American Indians, and this probably would be my normal reaction, since the vast majority of the context in which I see this word relates to them.
Darling Bill, may I take gentle issue with something you said? (Red) Indian. Few Americans have had any contact with them Weren't they Americans (geography-wise) before you and I were?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 428
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 428 |
1. Increasingly my reaction to the word "Indian" is one of mild shock and discomfort, like my reaction to your first example word.
2. I would never describe Native Americans as "Indians", as the word is increasingly considered politically incorrect. Considering how "geographically incorrect" it is makes it even more unacceptable to me and many other Americans. I believe several newspapers' sports sections have decided to stop refering to the baseball team from Cleveland (the Indians) and the football team from Washington DC (the Redskins) by their insensitive nicknames. For those who find the term "Native Americans" too cumbersome, a easy alternative is to use the name of the specific nation ("tribe") you are discussing instead of generalizing.
Only secondarily do I think of "someone (or thing) from India". Perhaps if people stop using the word to refer to Native Americans, it will also clear up the confusion currently inherent in the term. I have ofen heard this exchange:
"I was talking to an Indian friend --"
"American Indian or India Indian?"
"Oh, India Indian. Anyway, I was talking to a friend from India, and ..."
Just my humble opinion, but that's what you were looking for, wasn't it?
Flatlander
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,328
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
756
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
