Speaking with a native American

Mxsmanic   Monday, January 03, 2005, 05:24 GMT
Europeans are foreigners when they move outside Europe. But people born in the United States or Canada are not European. They are native Americans.
Tiffany   Monday, January 03, 2005, 07:43 GMT
Actually, they are just Americans by the standard you just used for Europeans. You didn't call Europeans "native Europeans" either.

Why not just settle for the term "native-born"? Why are you arguing so hard to change a definition (Native American) that won't change?
Mxsmanic   Monday, January 03, 2005, 20:15 GMT
When I said "Europeans," I mean native Europeans.

Why settle for "native-born" when it's redundant? "Native" already means "born there."
Reggie   Monday, January 03, 2005, 21:01 GMT
<<I just don't think Reggie's argument is very good.>>

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest, anything that brings into question the validity of your residency in the American (offspring/descendants of "illegal immigrants" into the American continent) continent is not palatable to your tastes, and that's completely understandable.
Harvey   Tuesday, January 04, 2005, 00:00 GMT
Reggie, illegal or not, we are here. My mother's family has been in Canada for over 200 years and was in the U.S. for about 50 years before that. They have no ties to the old world.

I grew up in a community where the aboriginal population was in the majority. In all the years I was there or have gone back there, I have NEVER heard anyone say that I had no right to be there.

They did have land claims, and they did claim special rights to fish and hunt (which seemed normal to me), and the did have their own political leaders and police services, etc. etc. And that all seemed normal to me.

There are too many people in the world now for us to expect that anyone can have any continent to themselves. All we can do is respect the differentness of the community and learn to live together.
mjd   Tuesday, January 04, 2005, 00:49 GMT
Let's analyze what Reggie wrote, shall we?

"Well whether you accept it or not Europeans are FOREIGNERS. And there is no bigger slap in the face than to steal someone's (after the hospitable treatment shown by the "real" natives when they first arrived uninvited and unexpectedly) and claim it as their own and then go on to call the original inhabitants of these lands by something they're not. I wonder how Europeans would react to being called Asians, Africans etc, etc, etc. It's just basic common courtesy, one would think it isn't that big of an ask."

Now, Reggie, the original explorers/conquistadores (or whatever you care to call them) were Europeans and they were foreigners. We (the descendants of European immigrants) are neither. As I said, I have no problem with the term "Native American" being applied to indigenous peoples (remember this is a forum about language). What I thought was silly in your argument was bringing up the fact that Europeans are foreigners....no kidding, but as I said, we're not Europeans.

As for the validity of my residence....I believe it's quite valid. You can't change history, pal, and palatability didn't even cross my mind. We're talking about language and certain terms used to describe a given group of people. Do historical injustices affect what terms we choose? Sure. Can we call people by whatever name the want to be called as a courtesy? Yeah.

However, in this case the term "Native American" becomes a proper noun and takes on a meaning different than "native American." Whether the "settling" of the continent by Europeans was violent or not, it does not change the fact that we too are "native Americans" (notice the lowercase N), i.e., were born here and have an attachment to the land, its people, culture, etc.
Easterner   Wednesday, January 05, 2005, 01:36 GMT
I agree that everyone born on American soil is a "native American", regardless of descent or ethnic background. I think a good way of distinction would be to call Amerindians "Aboriginal Americans" (that would be fitting, as "ab origine" means "from the beginning" in Latin), though I am not sure if "aboriginal" has not acquired a derogatory meaning. Sometimes I am not sure what term to use when referring to Amerindians: "Indian" is incorrect, because it reflects Columbus' delusion of having arrived to India, while Native American, the politically correct term, is inexact. So I prefer Aboriginal American, although I would like to know which one they themselves prefer.
Harvey   Wednesday, January 05, 2005, 01:50 GMT
In Canada, they clearly prefer "First Nations Peoples", although no one will say anything if you call them Aboringal Canadians (no insult as far as I know).

"Eskimo" has also fallen out of favour as a term, arctic aboriginals prefer to call themselves Inuit.

The term Métis, for people of mixed Aboriginal/European ancestry is still used (these people used to be called 'half breeds in the U.S. a long time ago, but I don't know what they are called now).

Métis people share aboriginal rights in Canada. The Canadian government recognizes them as a distinct social group. The term is used equally in French and English.
Toasté   Wednesday, January 05, 2005, 16:36 GMT
I came across this reference today in a CS Monitor article about ancient American cultures. I thought it was interesting how this person - a professor of Anthropology - distinguishes between "native Americans" and "nonnative citizens". I suspect that this is the current 'state-of-the-art' on what terms to use.


"It's about time that native Americans and nonnative citizens realize that in the eastern woodlands of the United States a great civilization arose, and the art it produced is equal to the art of societies at a similar level of development anywhere in the world, at any time and place," says Kent Reilly, a professor of anthropology at Texas State University.

For those who are interested, here is the link:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1231/p20s01-alar.html
Easterner   Wednesday, January 05, 2005, 17:18 GMT
<<In Canada, they clearly prefer "First Nations Peoples">>

I like that one. It is polite enough and does not "smell" so much of PC.
Toasté   Wednesday, January 05, 2005, 17:26 GMT
Actually, "First Nations Peoples" is VERY politically correct here and it is tied to kinds of issues related to land claims, financial compensation and aboriginal rights.

That being said, I use it, and it is currently the preferred term aboriginal Canadians use to self-describe.
Tiffany   Wednesday, January 05, 2005, 17:42 GMT
Toasté, I think the article is very telling. No matter how overly PC is sounds, the term "Native American" will stay at least through my generation in the United States. It is not associated with guilt - though it may have be born out of guilt. For me, it is simply an accepted term now used to refer to a certain group of people, something I grew up with. I'm pretty sure most people today do not say it out of guilt.

The Native Americans in Florida where I am from prefer to be known by their tribal association - the Mikasuki

I found this on goggle:
(this has been truncated)
"The term "Native Americans" came into the English lexicon in common
usage in the 1960's with respect to American Indians and Alaska
Natives over time, the term AMERICAN INDIAN has also been expanded to
include ALL native peoples of the United States and its territories,
including Native Hawaiians (although it has never really been widely
accepted by the tribes and clans of Hawaii), Chamorros, and American
Samoans among others.

The trend of embracing heritage labels is a fluid one and these names
will likely change again in time, but the fact remains that we cannot
please everyone on every official form and document*. Many Native
Americans actually prefer to be called “Indians” and are quite proud
of that title. Others more readily embrace the name “Native Americans”
or insist on being called only by the name of their Tribe (Cherokee,
Choctaw, Inuit, Navajo, etc). Still other, more contemporary ancestors
of the indigenous people have begun referring to themselves, and
encouraging others to refer to them as “Original Peoples” or “First
Nations” as they are called now in Canada and increasing more often in
the US."

*official forms in US refer to them as Native Americans

this is the link to the full page: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=415385
Pat the Expat   Wednesday, January 05, 2005, 18:13 GMT
I tend to use the term indigenous peoples, because it isn't too politically charged and it works well everywhere in the world.
Pat the Expat   Wednesday, January 05, 2005, 18:16 GMT
I also find it curious that "Metis" is still acceptable in Canada when "Mestizo" is not acceptable in Mexico and Central and South America. They are basically the same word, so they must have different social histories.
Mxsmanic   Wednesday, January 05, 2005, 19:07 GMT
Indigenous implies that they are only living there now, whereas aboriginal implies that all their known ancestors lived there, too.