|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
Considerable discussion occurred in Editorial meetings in the 1970s about how to distinguish, in writing, whether a person was a native of India or an American Indian.
The words Amerindian and Asiaindian were bandied about but time and history made the decision for us.
The American Indians I have been in contact with feel that Native American is generally acceptable as meaning the many Nations and tribes which make up the Native American population of the United States.
In Hawaii there was an upsurge in the pride among the indigenous peoples of those islands in the early 1980s and Native Hawaiian, meaning a person carrying the blood of indigenous ancestors, became the acceptable phrasing.
The more you use Native American and Native Hawaiian the more trippingly it rolls off the tongue.
Odd, if I am away from the USA and people ask where I'm from I say : "Im an American, from New England," but if I am in the US I tend to say "I'm Irish American."
As an aside there's the famous (at the time) story: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when addressing the Daughters of the American Revolution (?) began his remarks by addressing the assemblage : Fellow immigrants ..."
Which we are, aren't we?
Unless we are Native Americans?
wow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
As an aside there's the famous (at the time) story: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when addressing the Daughters of the American Revolution (?) began his remarks by addressing the assemblage : Fellow immigrants ..."
Which we are, aren't we?
Unless we are Native Americans?
wowDefinition of immigrant important here, wow. At the risk of alienating some, may I say that it seems quite certain certain (archaeological and genetic evidence combine here) that Native Americans are also immigrants - but of apporximately 13,000 years ago, from over the Bering land bridge that existed at the time.  cheer the sunshine warrior
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
here's a reaction/response you probably haven't had.
my initial reaction is calm and reasoned and goes like this: since the word has ambiguous connotations, it depends totally on the context; i.e., where am I and who am I speaking with.
since I live in the U.S., this usually means that I end up in the American Indian context and have to deal with the whole p.c. thing [exasperated frown] once again. I rail at using the Native American appellation -- am I not a 'native american'? are my US-born ancestors not just as dead as theirs? [gratuitous aside: I doubt that aborigine (or autochthon) will catch on here anytime soon.] so I end up [response] being steamed at having to deal with yet another of these frustrating language issues that are really just a waste of time and energy and contribute *nothing* to useful dialog(ue).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
Native Americans are also immigrants - but of approximately 13,000 years ago
Oh, Pooh! I knew that, Sweet Shanks!
FDR was jabbing at a group who considered themselves "THE" Americans ... and he used his opening to bring home the point that there are many "Americans."
Remember, sweetheart, those were the days when the Metropolitan Opera diva, contralto Marian Anderson, was denied the use of the DAR Hall for a concert. The DAR said the reason was not because Miss Anderson was a Negro (the term of the time) but because the Hall was too small to accommodate the expected audience.
Anyway, through the intercession of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, the concert was held at the Lincoln Memorial with Miss Anderson on the steps just below the statue of The Great Emancipator, and many many thousands of people of all colors filling the mall below.
There are films of the event extant.
wow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289 |
One of my experiences, Shanks, makes me wonder what Indians think about "Indian", or, for that matter, what members of any human grouping think about their own group.
My wife became friends, through her work, with an Indian physician. Her husband is an engineer and they have two young sons, who attended a very exclusive private school here (they are very well off). Her mother lives with them and does all the housekeeping and cooking (she's a wonderful cook) and takes charge of the boys; she watches them like a hawk while they do their homework and, although she understands none of it, not being an educated woman and not speaking English very well, and they being quite advanced in their studies, if she thinks they are slacking or fooling around, she lets them have it with a stick.
The wife and her mother are from northern India and speak Hindi; her husband is from southern India and speaks one of the southern languages. (Their marriage was arranged by their parents.) He gets along OK in Hindi, but she and her mother do not know his language very well. They speak mostly English with the boys and some Hindi, but I'm not sure if the boys know any of their father's language.
Thanks to the grandmother, at home they eat Indian food only; the boys eat American food at school and outside the home, but the parents ordinarily do not. We spent a weekend with them at their new home in Connecticut, where they moved after her contract in Baltimore lapsed, and ate nothing but Indian food, cooked by the grandmother, and had a wonderful time. We noticed, however, that the boys, although very respectful and deferential to their elders, seemed to be somewhat dissatisfied with the fact that they live in a sort of artificial Indian island in the midst of Connecticut. We also learned that on the 2 or 3 occasions when they took the boys to India to visit family, the boys' reactions were very negative -- they absolutely hated Bombay (where they stayed with her brother and his family, crowded into a too-small apartment) and they didn't like their paternal grandparents' home in the country (from pictures it looks like a substantial estate) in south India. They hated the heat, the flies, the smells, the fact they couldn't understand anyone -- in short, it appears they are too Americanized, at least at the age they were then (12 and 9).
My wife and I have often remarked that it's a shame that their privileged upper-income life in America seems to have spoiled them for appreciating their ancestral land. They seem somehow to be more Indian here than there, and maybe don't care to be Indian.
Comments?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
"apporximately 13,000 years ago, from over the Bering land bridge that existed at the time. "
I have read that the natives of Alaska are amused by the anthropologists' fixation on a land bridge, saying that a crossing on the ice would have been easy. And in addition, the people in Siberia may well have had the equivalents of kayaks prior to that time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Bob
Thanks for that. The reaction of the boys seems about typical. In Bombay, when we were young and politically incorrect, and probably in other places too, Indians used to call people of this ilk ABCDs - American Born Confused Desis (the last word being Hindi for '[fellow] countrymen').
Another very common situation is one in which the emigrants adhere more closely to the 'traditions' of the homeland than the people in the homeland do.
You say:
it's a shame that their privileged upper-income life in America seems to have spoiled them for appreciating their ancestral land
Here, I feel, context is everything. I do not see why anybody, no matter what her/his ancestry, should appreciate overcrowding, intense heat, poverty and extremely dangerous water. While many in India have to live in these conditions, they are not things to be celebrated. As Shaw pointed out in Major Barbara, you may feel pity for the poor, but be pretty certain not to romanticise poverty.
The fact of the matter is that (as any UN, UNESCO, UNICEF study will point out) the median standard of living in India today is atrocious. It would be unfair to ask these children to somehow appreciate it. On the other hand, if their family is helping them to appreciate some of the highlights of Indian culture and history - whether it is the range and depth of its architecture, literature, music, performing arts, graphic arts and so on, or the fact that it is the seat of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, and is the most populous democracy in the world - then I am sure this is a good thing. It doesn't sound to me as if the children will miss out on these things to be celebrated about India. And I promise you that you do not have to enjoy visiting Bombay, or anywhere else in the country today, in order to do so.
Yes, it would be nice if they could enjoy visiting India - but then, I'm sure it would be nice if many more people enjoyed doing that - the Indian Tourism Development Board would have multiple little deaths of delight at the thought - but the fact is that the Indian experience, for anyone accustomed to living in a developed Westernised society, is 'intense' to say the least, and even traumatic for many. I do not think these children are necessarily born with any special 'coping with India' genes, and one can hardly blame them for knowing exactly where in the world they feel more comfortable, safe, relaxed and healthy.
cheer
the sunshine warrior
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 819
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 819 |
Although I was born in the USA, and live in the USA, I feel uncomfortable thinking of aboriginal people on this continent as Indians. It is simply illogical, founded on a gross error in navigation by that Italian sailor in the employ of the Spanish.
The picture gets cloudier, however, when one realises that those whom we consider aboriginal, or native Americans may NOT be aboriginal! The recent discovery of Kennowick Man casts doubt that those claiming to be here first really were.
As for your "trigger" word, "nigger," just remove one "g" and you've got the Latin word for black, and an African country as well. Spelling and context make such a difference!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 387
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 387 |
Someone in my Eglish class, looking at a globe, made the mistake of thinking that the trigger word had only one g.
On another subject, I noticed that someone said that the Indians lost when kids played Cowboys and Indians, the Indians lost. Well, when I played, the Indians usually took over the world after killing the Cowboys.
jimthedog
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,372
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
220
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
